My Musings

The Importance of the Gospel: Galatians 1:1-10

2010-01-04T09:26:00.000-08:00

Introduction

As stated in the first verse, the book of Galatians was written by the apostle Paul. According to James Montgomery Boice, “Of the traditional Pauline books few have been so unquestioningly accepted as genuine as the book of Galatians.”[1] Though Pauline authorship is virtually uncontested, there is no definite answer as to where the book was written, and neither do scholars know exactly to whom the book was written.[2] During the time of Paul, there was both a Southern and a Northern Galatia, and thus ambiguity exists as to the exact audience to whom Paul wrote.[3] Those who hold to the view that Paul wrote to the southern province of Galatia date the book at around A. D. 48,[4] and those who accept the northern view date the book as late as A.D. 58.[5]

Galatians contains one central theme—the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The book of Galatians easily breaks down into three sections. In the first two chapters of the book, Paul defends his apostleship as being from God. He states explicitly that it was God, not men, who commissioned him to be an apostle (Gal. 1:1, 1:15). In chapters 3-4, Paul reminds the Galatians of the gospel of Christ. He reproves them for being so quickly led astray and urges them to return to the truth of the one, true gospel. Paul specifically appeals to the Galatians on the basis of grace and faith, emphasizing that it is not man’s works that provide salvation, but rather placing faith in the work of Christ (Gal. 3:10, 4:4-6). In the third section of the book, Paul provides the Galatians with instructions for walking in godliness. The key words in this book include grace, faith, and law.

MIT: Believers must hold to a right understanding of the gospel and must proclaim the truth of the gospel in a proper fashion.

Outline

I. Paul introduces himself as an apostle of Christ. 1:1-2

II. Paul greets the church of Galatia. 1:3-5

III. It is important to follow the one, true gospel. 1:6-7

IV. It is important to preach the gospel of Christ correctly. 1:8-9

V. The servant of Christ must aim to please Christ, not men. 1:10

I. Paul introduces himself as an apostle.

It is important to note Paul’s manner of greeting in the beginning of this book. Paul introduces himself specifically as “an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1). Though Paul introduces himself as an apostle in every other Pauline epistle, the book of Galatians is the only epistle that deliberately states that he is an apostle chosen not through man but through Christ. John Peter Lange observes, “This laying claim so expressly to apostolic dignity in the very introduction, stands…in connection with the vital questions of the Epistle, since his equal apostolic rank had been impugned by the Galatian false teachers.”[6] The false teachers who had invaded the church specifically denied Paul’s claim to apostolic authority, and thus Paul strongly states from the very outset of the book that his authority is based upon Christ.[7] If Paul had appointed himself as an apostle, or if he was appointed merely upon the authority of man, then his message would not be from God.[8] However, Christ himself appointed Paul as an apostle, and Paul’s message is indeed the truth of the gospel.

Paul also backs up his apostolic authority by appealing to the brothers who are with him in Galatia (Gal. 1:2). Campbell observes, “Mentioning these co-laborers emphasized the fact that the teachings of this epistle were not peculiar to Paul but were held in common with others.”[9] Lange further comments, “[Paul] wishes the Galatians to understand, that he has on his side all the brethren in the midst of whom he writes, that these have the same opinion of their conduct, and thus indicates that the Galatians, unless they came to another mind, would sever themselves from the great communion of the brethren, who stand and abide upon the foundation of faith which Paul had laid.”[10] Paul thus introduces this book with a strong assertion of his authority as an apostle, both on the basis of being chosen by Christ and also based on the fact that his message is accepted by his fellow believers.

II. Paul greets the church of Galatia.

After he introduces himself with a strong emphasis on his apostolic authority, Paul then goes on to greet the Galatian church. Just as the introduction of this book differs from Paul’s other epistles, Paul’s greeting to the Galatian church is also unique to this book. Whereas Paul includes exhortation and thanksgiving for the churches he addresses in his other epistles, this element is eliminated from Paul’s greeting to the Galatian church.[11]

Paul begins his greeting with the phrase “grace and peace” (Gal. 1:3). The Greek word used for grace is the word charis. This word means “good will, loving-kindness, favour.”[12] The word also speaks “of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues.”[13] This greeting of grace and peace is used by Paul in each of the Pauline epistles. Though Paul uses this word in all of his other epistles, his use of the word “is doubly striking here, inasmuch as it occurs in a letter to churches where the sufficiency of salvation by grace was being questioned and perhaps even denied.”[14] Paul is often referred to as the “theologian of grace.”[15] Thus, it is doubly fitting that he should begin his letter by wishing the church charis. Without grace, one cannot experience reconciliation to God.

Paul also wishes the church peace, or eirene. Thayer defines this word as “the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, or whatsoever that lot is.”[16] Though Paul uses this word in all of his greetings, it is again especially applicable to the Galatian church. The church of Galatia was overrun by false teachers, and these teachers had threatened the tranquility and the foundation of the Galatian church. Calvin observes, “Paul wishes for the Galatians a state of friendship with God, and, along with it, all good things.”[17]

After greeting the Galatians with grace and peace, Paul continues his greeting with a rich theological message. In verse 3, Paul associates God and the Lord Jesus Christ together. Campbell argues that Paul thus makes “a good statement of the full divinity of Jesus” in this greeting.[18] After he establishes the divinity of Christ, Paul then goes on to discuss the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. He specifically states that Christ “gave himself for our sins to deliver us” (Gal. 1:4). Calvin observes, “These words…were intended to convey to the Galatians a doctrine of vast importance; that no other satisfactions can lawfully be brought into comparison with that sacrifice of himself which Christ offered to the Father.”[19] Christ alone is able to deliver man from sin. In and of himself, man is powerless. Luther observes, “Paul, even at the first entrance, bursteth out into the whole manner whereof he intreateth this epistle. Christ’s victory…is the overcoming of the law, of sin, our flesh, the world, the devil, death, hell, and all evils: And his victory he hath given unto us.”[20]

Paul ends his greeting doxologically and states that all glory belongs to God the Father (Gal. 1:5). According to Boice, “The doxology that occurs here serves an important purpose. It sets the gospel, centering on the preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ and his work, above any human criticism or praise.”[21] Paul’s introduction and greeting indeed provides a solid introduction for the thesis of this book. In just a few verses, “Paul had already drawn the lines of battle by touching on two vital concerns. He had affirmed his own apostleship and had declared that the basis of man’s salvation lies solely in the work of Christ and not in any human works.”[22] Paul is now ready to launch straight into the message of his epistle.

III. It is important to follow the one, true gospel.

Immediately following his introduction, Paul rather abruptly begins to address the issues present within the Galatian church. After introducing the gospel so clearly in his greeting, Paul chastises the Galatian church for so quickly turning aside from the gospel that he had preached to them (Gal. 1:6). Hovey observes, “The abruptness with which Paul introduces the occasion for his epistle reveals his intense and painful anxiety—an anxiety mingled with surprise and pressing for expression.”[23] The apostle Paul accuses the Galatian church of turning aside from Christ himself.[24] Warren Wiersbe observes, “The Galatian believers were not simply ‘changing religions’ or ‘changing churches’ but were actually abandoning the very grace of God! To make matters worse, they were deserting the very God of grace!”[25] This is a grave accusation indeed. It is imperative for believers to recognize the importance of following the one, true gospel. The gospel is the power of God to those who believe (Rom. 1:16), and it is only through the gospel that man can be saved. Therefore, to be accused of falling away from the gospel is indeed grave.

Paul goes on to chastise the church for turning aside “to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). He quickly goes on to qualify that statement by asserting that there is no gospel other than the gospel of Christ. Paul “declares that it is not a gospel, but a mere disturbance.”[26] Paul had clearly stated the gospel in his introduction to this letter, and he now reiterates to the Galatian church the vital importance and necessity of believing in the one, true gospel. As Boice observes, “The gospel is one. Therefore any system of salvation that varies from it is counterfeit.”[27] Paul is burdened for the souls of the Galatian believers and wishes to convey to them the urgency of believing in the true gospel.

Verse 7 refers to the false teachers for the first time. Paul observes that there “are some who trouble” the church “and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7). This is indeed a grave accusation to bring against those who have infiltrated the Galatian church. To pervert or distort the gospel of Christ is to lead individuals away from the truth of God. In this letter to the Galatians, it is important that they “learn that any attempt to alter the true gospel is culpable and that any who go about teaching another gospel will be condemned.”[28] It is no light matter to tamper with the truth of Christ.

IV. It is important to preach the gospel of Christ correctly.

Following his introduction of the false teachers, Paul has strong words to say about the fate of those who preach a gospel that is untrue. Once more, Paul reiterates the necessity of preaching the one, true gospel. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Paul states in a very strong fashion that those who preach a gospel contrary to the true gospel of Christ should be accursed. Boice observes that Paul’s use of the Greek word anathema literally means, “Let him be damned.”[29] This is indeed an emphatic way to state his point. Preaching the gospel of Christ should not be taken lightly.

Paul feels so strongly about this point that he reiterates it again in verse 9. Anyone who preaches a false gospel is to be accursed. Calvin observes, [Paul] exhorts them to entertain a firm and serious conviction, that the doctrine which they had received and embraced is the true gospel of Christ.”[30] The Galatians had already received the true gospel of Christ, and they should now stand firm in the gospel which they had heard and believed. Paul’s strong words provide a sober warning to those who twist and pervert the gospel in order to lead individuals astray.

Paul is rightly concerned that the Galatians espouse a proper view of the gospel. Boice observes, “If the gospel Paul preaches is the truth, then both the glory of Jesus Christ and the salvation of man are at stake. If man can be saved by works, Christ has died in vain; the cross is emptied of meaning. If men are taught a false gospel, they are being led away from the one thing that can save them and are being turned to destruction.”[31] Much is at stake as a result of the false teaching that pervades the Galatian church. It is imperative that the gospel be preached correctly. Believers must bear in mind that “when the way of the gospel message is corrupted, the way of salvation is confused and people are in danger of being eternally lost.”[32]

V. The servant of Christ must aim to please Christ, not men.

In verse 10, Paul addresses the accusation that he was merely attempting to please men through preaching the gospel. In response to this charge, “Paul denied that he was trying to ingratiate himself with men. It was not men he was serving; it was God. It made no difference to him what men said or thought about him; his master was God.”[33] If Paul was indeed trying to attain the approval of man, he would not have approached the Galatians with such a harsh message. Rather, Paul was concerned with being a faithful and true servant of Jesus Christ. He desired God’s approval over and above any approval he could ever gain from man.

Paul is preaching to the Galatian church in good conscience and out of a desire to please God and to instruct the Galatians in the correct nature of the gospel. The apostle states that his motivation is not earthly approval but rather for the honor and glory of God alone. Paul uses interrogative language in order to more forcefully make his point.[34] In this series of questions, Paul “expresses the great boldness which [he] derived from the testimony of a good conscience; for he knew that he had discharged his duty in such a manner as not to be liable to any reproach.”[35]

It is important that believers seek the approval of God over and above the approval of man. Ultimately, the opinions of man will fade away, but mankind is eternally answerable to God. The very nature of the gospel is offensive in that it requires mankind to take a hard, honest look at sin and the need for a savior. If a believer desires the approval of man over and above the approval of God, he will most likely not faithfully preach the gospel. Seeking to please God will bring forth eternal rewards, but the approval of mankind is fleeting and insignificant. Those who find themselves leaning toward more legalistic tendencies will find the gospel of grace difficult to accept and understand. But it is imperative and necessary for believers to preach the whole, unadulterated gospel.

Within the first ten verses of Galatians, Paul sets up the thesis of this book and provides his readers with the basic direction that he will take his message throughout the entirety of the epistle. He defends his apostolic authority and boldly asserts that his authority is derived from Christ alone and that he speaks in order to bring glory to God alone. Paul also includes a strong statement of the gospel and stresses the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. He then expresses his consternation that the Galatian church would so quickly fall away from the one, true gospel of Christ. Paul reminds the Galatians of the true gospel and urges them to follow the truth of the gospel and to forsake wrong doctrine of false teachers.

It is important for believers to have a firm foundation in the gospel. If a believer has a solid understanding of the gospel of Christ, he is less likely to be led astray by false teachers. The importance of the gospel cannot be stressed enough. It is only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ that man can truly be saved. Any attempt at salvation apart from Christ will ultimately prove futile.

Works Cited

Barclay, Williams. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10. Ed. Frank E. Gabelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. 409-508.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2005.

Campbell, Donald K. “Galatians.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Dallas: Victor Books, 1983. 587-612.

Hovey, Alvah. “Galatians.” In An American Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V. Ed. Alvah Hovey. Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1887.

Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Galatians. Trans. Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1860.

Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1978.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Dictonary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Wiersbe, Warren. The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament Volume 1. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001.

[1] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10. Ed. Frank E. Gabelein. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 420.

[2] Ibid., 412.

[3] Donald K. Cambell, “Galatians” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Dallas: Victor Books, 1983), 588.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Alvah Hovey, “Galatians,” in An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. V, ed. Alvah Hovey (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Society, 1887), 10.

[6]John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Galatians, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ?), 12.

[7] Boice, 424.

[8] Ibid., 411.

[9] Campbell, 590.

[10] Lange, 12.

[11] Campbell, 589.

[12] Thayer

[13] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1978).

[14] Campbell, 426.

[15] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Dictonary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 571.

[16] Thayer.

[17] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul: Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2005), 26..

[18] Campbell, 426.

[19] Calvin, 26.

[20] Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860), 145.

[21] Boice, 426.

[22] Campbell, 590.

[23] Hovey, 15.

[24] Calvin, 29

[25] Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament volume 1 (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001), 683.

[26] Calvin, 31.

[27] Boice, 428.

[28] Boice, 429.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Calvin, 34.

[31] Boice, 429.

[32] Campbell, 591.

[33] William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 11.

[34] Calvin, 36.

[35] Ibid.

The Narrator’s Changed Perspective in “Bartleby, the Scrivener”

2009-12-16T20:59:00.000-08:00

Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener” is both a fascinating and rather ambiguous tale. Since the revival of Melville scholarship in the 1920s, “Bartleby” has received much attention from various scholars (Lea Bertani 49). Interpretations of this story range from assertions that it is autobiographical to the unlikely interpretation that “Bartleby” is a commentary on Thoreau’s experiment at Walden (Egbert S. Oliver). Other scholars argue that this story should be read as commentary on the ill effects of the American Industrial Revolution (Bertani 54). Other scholars focus on the role of the narrator within the story and argue that the story cannot be understood apart from this character (Todd F. Davis 184). Though perhaps some of these other criticisms can indeed hold some weight, it seems most likely that the events of this story should be interpreted based on the character of the narrator and specifically through the gradual changes that occur within the narrator throughout this story leading up to his exclamation at the end. During the actual events of the story, the narrator experiences an epiphany but does not act based upon his new realization. As he looks back on the story, he experiences a full epiphany based on the events of the past. This paper will view the changes that occur in the narrator throughout the story and argue that he does not fully reach a point of change until he reflectively looks back on the events that occurred in his office.

At the beginning of the story, the narrator introduces himself as “a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best” (Melville 4). By his own admission, the lawyer is apathetic, tranquil, and a creature of habit. He chose his line of work simply because it was the least turbulent and did not require a great deal of effort on his part. Those of his acquaintance consider him to be “an eminently safe man” (Melville 4). He is not a man of strong emotion and seldom gives himself over to strong feelings. He does not overly concern himself with the affairs of his fellow men and “seldom indulge[s] in dangerous indignations at wrongs and outrages” (Melville 4-5). In his essay “The Narrator’s Dilemma in ‘Bartleby, the Scrivener’: The Excellently Illustrated Re-Statement of a Problem,” Todd F. Davis says of the narrator, “He has not struggled with the ethics of justice, of good and evil; rather, he makes his way in this world comfortable by dealing with the physical, the tangible, that which he can know” (185-6). He considers himself, above all, to be a man of reason and docility and takes great pride in his rationality.

The narrator’s apathetic attitude is also seen in the way he views his employees. Though Turkey and Nippers both exhibit a great deal of incompetency in their work, the lawyer is not willing to dismiss them simply because it is too much trouble to confront his employees over their flaws. Rather, the narrator chooses to focus on the ways his employees are valuable. Davis observes, “He is a man concerned with getting the work of his office completed in a painlessly expeditious fashion. He worries more about the usefulness and productivity of his scriveners than their individual characters” (188). His focus is temporal, and he values his employees simply based upon the degree of service which they are able to offer him.

When the narrator first encounters Bartleby, he is thrilled to have “a man of so singularly sedate an aspect” in his employment to counteract the volatile nature of his other employees (Melville 9). He values Bartleby for his steady, consistent, and quiet work. Winifred Morgan observes that the narrator at first appreciates Bartleby because he “works like the automaton the narrator thinks he requires” (“‘Bartleby’ and the Failure of Conventional Virtue” 262). The narrator cannot even imagine a better or more productive worker. Bartleby seems to be the perfect representation of a hard working scrivener.

Though Bartleby at first brings delight to the temporal-minded narrator, a change soon occurs that begins to cause a shift in the narrator’s thinking. A mere three days after Bartleby enters into the narrator’s employment, he informs the lawyer that he would “prefer not to” do or accomplish certain tasks (10). The narrator is absolutely baffled by Bartleby’s statement and is unsure how to respond. At first he simply sits “in perfect silence, rallying [his] stunned faculties” (11). At first he finds it unbelievable that Bartleby would have responded in such a fashion. But Bartleby continues to placidly respond to the narrator’s requests with the phrase, “I would prefer not to.” Following his typical pattern of apathy and inaction, the narrator chooses not to deal with Bartleby in that moment. Though he ponders what he should do in response to Bartleby’s statement that he would “prefer not to,” the lawyer decides to “forget the matter for the present” and to “reserve it for [his] future leisure” (11). His immediate response to the situation is to pass the work on to his other scriveners and leave the issue of Bartleby for another day and time.

As Bartleby continues in his preference not to accomplish certain tasks, the narrator remains absolutely perplexed at Bartleby’s response. The narrator at first “attempts to respond cautiously, or to use his word, ‘safely’ to something that is out of control” (Morgan 261). However, the lawyer quickly comes to realize that his encounter with Bartleby is far beyond the realm of anything in his previous experience. According to Davis, “The entrance of Bartleby and his refusal to do the tasks set before him force the narrator to question his past rules for living, rules that have never accounted for the mysterious and frightening world…unknowable in earthly terms” (188). Though the narrator is increasingly annoyed with Bartleby’s refusal to accomplish required tasks, there is something about Bartleby that both “strangely disarm[s]” and “in a powerful manner touche[s] and disconcert[s]” the author (Melville 12). The narrator at first attempts to respond to Bartleby as he would to Nippers or Turkey in that he sees Bartleby as “useful to [him] and thus decides to “get along with him” (Melville 13). Morgan observes, “The narrator hopes to bargain, to achieve the sort of semi-comfortable arrangement with Bartleby he has already achieved with Nippers and Turkey, his other copyists” (263). But as Bartleby continues in his persistent resistance, the narrator’s views and ideals undergo a gradual change. It is Bartleby’s unprecedented response that causes the narrator to embark on a journey of self-reflection that gradually alters his perception of himself and of the world.

As Bartleby continues in his refusal to accomplish certain tasks, the narrator begins to observe this strange character more closely and also to evaluate his responses to Bartleby. By keeping Bartleby in his employ, the narrator desires to “purchase a delicious self-approval” (Melville 13). His motivation in “befriending” Bartleby is to “lay up in [his] soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for [his] conscience” (Melville 14). At this point, the author’s perspective is still purely temporal. He allows Bartleby to remain in his employment because Bartleby provides him a valuable service, and also because the narrator himself hopes to gain a feeling of morality by allowing Bartleby to stay in his office. At times the narrator is reduced to feeling of utter annoyance and anger upon hearing Bartleby’s oft repeated “I would prefer not to” (14). In other instances, the narrator attempts to reason with Bartleby and inspire him to action. Because Bartleby remains serene and unmoved in the face of any reasoning, the lawyer eventually comes to accept that Bartleby will both continue to copy and refuse to participate in any other activity.
The narrator’s perspective of Bartleby undergoes a complete change on a fateful Sunday afternoon when he decides to make a quick stop at his office on the way to church. Much to his surprise, the narrator discovers that Bartleby is present at his office. On further investigation, the lawyer determines that Bartleby is in fact living in his office (Melville 16). As the narrator observes the utter loneliness and isolation that comprises Bartleby’s existence, he reaches a point of epiphany as, for the first time, his perspective changes from being merely temporal to transcendent. Morgan observes, “Acknowledging Bartleby’s physical poverty and his seeming poverty of spirit jolts the narrator” (264). The narrator states, “For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me” (Melville 17). He feels a common bond of humanity with Bartleby and realizes that they are both “sons of Adam” (Melville 17). The narrator’s perspective thus begins to shift as he observes the unthinkable poverty and isolation of his lowly scrivener.

As the narrator continues to ponder on this striking new realization, he begins to feel an overwhelming sense of pity for Bartleby. However, as the narrator continues to ponder Bartleby’s isolation and poverty, “melancholy merge[s] into fear, pity into repulsion” (Melville 19). The lawyer realizes that this encounter with human suffering is beyond the realm of his typical experience, and he is unsure how to respond to this new dilemma placed before him. He realizes the “hopelessness of remedying excessive and organic ill” (Melville 19). Andre Furlani observes that the attorney’s “pity for Bartleby shifts to pity for himself, and the maneuver brings him closer to the truth” (“Bartleby the Socratic 346). The narrator’s encounter with Bartleby causes him to realize something about himself. For the first time in the story, the narrator’s focus shifts from a strictly temporal perspective to a transcendent perspective. He realizes that Bartleby’s disorder is an affliction of the soul, and he further realizes that he cannot reach a soul (Melville 19).

The discovery of Bartleby’s hopeless isolation so rattles the narrator that he abandons his former plans for the day, heads homeward, and ponders how he should respond to what he has encountered. Frulani points out, “The attorney’s reflex is to take pity on Bartleby rather than to acknowledge his power and to act upon it” (345). In other words, though the narrator indeed feels pity for Bartleby, he does not respond to that feeling of pity by taking action. He does not attempt to help Bartleby. He does not make any effort to encounter Bartleby at the point of his soul. His temporal mind cannot quite wrap itself around the startling discovery he has made. During his homeward meditations, the narrator simply resolves to question Bartleby and, if he does not receive satisfactory answers, to dismiss him (Melville 19). The attorney decides that if he must dismiss Bartleby, he will give the scrivener twenty dollars, help him with any travel arrangements he may need, and assure the scrivener that he will come to his aid if Bartleby was ever in need of anything (19). Apparently, the narrator views this plan as a sufficient response to the suffering of a human soul. Thus, though the narrator does indeed experience a shift in his thinking, and though his mind is illuminated to a realm of existence he was not previously aware of, he does not act upon this new realization. Rather, he is frightened by it and does not want to deal with the new reality he has experienced. Though the reader may expect the narrator to respond to his moment of epiphany by changing his actions and way of life, the narrator instead virtually ignores the new perspective he gains on humanity. In a sense, it seems that he “prefers not to” take action or to change the way in which he relates to the world.

On the following day, the narrator begins to question Bartleby. The scrivener follows each question with his usual form of address and “would prefer not to” answer any of the lawyer’s questions (Melville 19). Though the narrator is typically an even tempered and even apathetic man, he is annoyed by Bartleby’s refusal to answer his questions. The lawyer feels that he has done a great deal of good for Bartleby, and that he is thus entitled to receive some answers concerning the scrivener’s personal life (20). Despite his irritation, however, he cannot quite bring himself to dismiss Bartleby. The narrator feels that he cannot carry out the task of dismissing Bartleby and that if he would be “denounce[d] [as] a villain if [he] dared to breathe one bitter word against this forlornest of mankind” (Melville 20). He thus changes his tactic and one again tries to appeal to Bartleby on the basis of temporal reason. However, Bartleby “would prefer not to be a little reasonable,” and once again the author is forced to acknowledge that he is dealing with something outside his usual realm of experience (Melville 20). As Furlani observes, “The attorney is rapidly placed…before the prospect of a world that is not fully encompassed by reason” (348). The attorney’s previous view of the world does not provide him with a sufficient framework to deal with Bartleby.

Throughout the remainder of the story, the narrator vacillates between feelings of pity, revulsion, and anger towards Bartleby. When Bartleby ceases to copy, the narrator assumes that there is something wrong with Bartleby’s eyes and is touched by his temporarily impaired vision (Melville 21). However, Bartleby’s eyes show no sign of improvement, and the narrator becomes annoyed with the scrivener for refusing to accomplish any other tasks. Though Bartleby becomes “like a millstone” to the narrator, he is also sorry for him because he seems “alone, absolutely alone in the universe” (Melville 22). Furlani observes, “[The narrator] can congratulate himself on the largeness of his sympathies, his Christian forbearance, his rich vein of charity dispensed at any opportunity” (348). The narrator believes that he is dealing with Bartleby in an honorable and even Christian fashion by allowing the scrivener to remain in his employment. However, his motivation is impure and thus his charitable actions are short lived. Within a short period of time, the narrator once again attempts to rid himself of Bartleby. Yet, once again, Bartleby would “prefer not to” leave (22).

When Bartleby once more refuses to quit the office, the narrator is outraged. Indeed, thoughts and feelings of murder even arise within the narrator. But as these murderous thoughts well up within the attorney, he is reminded of “the divine injunction: ‘A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another’” (Melville 25). As the narrator ponders this divine injunction, he is once more on the verge of greater insight (Furlani 349). However, he responds incorrectly to this injunction. Selfishness and temporal thinking continue to blind the narrator and cause an inability to respond to Bartleby out of true Christian charity. According to Davis, “The lawyer…vascillate[s] between Christian charity tainted with earthly self-interest and earthly business tainted with Christian ideals” (190). In other words, the lawyer does realize that his interaction with Bartleby needs to change. His encounter with Bartleby’s solitude, isolation, and miserable existence has changed the way he looks at Bartleby. However, his reaction towards that changed perspective is not sufficient. He does not change from his former characteristic of apathy, safety, and lack of feeling for humanity. His attempts to interact with Bartleby in a “Christian” fashion are unsuccessful because his mind is still fixed and focused on temporal things. The narrator has not yet allowed his encounter to Bartleby to change him enough to turn him to action.

The narrator’s solution to the problem of Bartleby is to remove himself from the situation entirely. Rather than dealing with Bartleby and bringing some form of resolution to the circumstances, the attorney simply moves to a new office building. However, changing locations does not resolve the dilemma that Bartleby caused him to encounter. Despite the fact that the lawyer no longer occupies the same buildings, Bartleby still “prefers not to” leave his present location. The new tenant of the building quickly seeks out the narrator for information concerning the strange apparition who constantly haunts the building. Following his usual pattern of inactivity and apathy, the narrator responds that Bartleby is nothing to him and that he knows nothing of the scrivener (Melville 29). When pressed further, the lawyer makes a half-hearted attempt to reach Bartleby, but Bartleby does not wish to remove himself or to accept the lawyer’s offer of help.

The new tenants of the office are not as charitably minded as the lawyer, and they decide to sent Bartleby to the Tombs as a vagrant. When the narrator goes to visit Bartleby, the scrivener greets him by saying, “I know you, and I want nothing to say to you” (Melville 32). The narrator feels a sense of both pain and guilt at Bartleby’s statement. Perhaps his feeling of guilt is based on the fact that, deep down, the narrator knows he could have responded differently to Bartleby. In one last act of charity, the narrator agrees to pay the grub man to serve Bartleby food. By all appearances, it seems that the narrator has done all that he can.

The narrator’s moment of true change does not occur until after Bartleby’s death. When he observes the dead Bartleby on the ground of the prison, he states that he is asleep “with kings and counsellors” (Melville 33). The narrator here makes an allusion to the book of Job and “evokes a Bartleby redeemed from the world’s vain, decaying splendors, a righteous Bartleby standing over the ruins that the attorney’s imagination constantly projects” (Furlani 350). The attorney realizes that Bartleby has left this life and gone on to the next. Again, his temporal viewpoint of the world is challenged as he realizes that Bartleby has now reached a point of true transcendence.

I submit that the narrator does not truly reach a point of altered perspective until he observes Bartleby dead on the ground and later learns more of Bartleby’s past. The very fact that the narrator wrote this story illustrates that he was affected and changed by his encounter with Bartleby. If he was not altered by this experience, why spend time reflecting back on it later? Furlani argues that the narrator never does gain greater insight and that no true change occurs in the narrator (350). However, I believe that the closing lines of this narrative serve to illustrate that the narrator’s view of Bartleby and of humanity is changed. The narrator comes to realize that the qualities he possessed which he first thought to be virtues are nothing more than “weakness and failure” (Dan McCall 272). As the narrator reflects on Bartleby’s position in the Dead Letter Office, he observes that Bartleby’s former employment must have played a part in causing him to become the pathetic, isolated, melancholy character that he was.

The narrator’s tone in the epilogue of the story is decidedly different from that which he uses during the body of his tale. Morgan observes, “By the last page the smug self-assurance heard in the narrative voice of the first pages has surely altered to something considerably more thoughtful” (267). Though he does not respond correctly to Bartleby, the narrator learns something about humanity through his encounter with the scrivener. He learns that he cannot approach everything in life from a simply rationalistic and temporal outlook. He learns that sometimes mankind needs to be ministered to in his soul, not simply through monetary or temporal means. And he learns that sometimes taking the safe or easy way is not always the best way.

Though the narrator displays evidences of change, a certain amount of ambiguity also exists concerning how much the narrator has really changed. Will this changed perspective last? The next time the narrator encounters human suffering, will his response be different? Will he remember the lessons he learned from Bartleby and respond in true Christian charity, or will he once again return to his apathetic and temporal view of mankind? Only the narrator knows.

Works Cited

Bertani, Lea and Vozar Newman. A Reader’s Guide to the Short Stories of Herman Melville. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986.
Davis, Todd F. “The Narrator’s Dilemma in ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’: The Excellently Illustrated Re-statement of a Problem.” Studies in Short Fiction 34.2 (1997): 183-192.
Furlani, Andre. “Bartleby the Socratic.” Studies in Short Fiction 34 (1997): 335-356.

McCall, Dan. “The Reliable Narrator.” Melville’s Short Novels: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Dan McCall. New York: Norton & Company, 2002. 266-286.

Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” In Melville’s Short Novels. Ed. Dan McCall. New York: Norton & Company, 2002. 3-34.

Morgan, Winifred. “ ‘Bartleby’ and the Failure of Conventional Virtue.” Renascense 45 (1993): 257-271.

Oliver, Egbert S. “A Second Look at ‘Bartleby.’” Bartleby the Inscrutable. Ed. Thomas Inge. Connecticut: Archon Books, 1979. 61-74

The Pearl: An Anti-Pelagian Work

2009-12-11T13:22:00.000-08:00

Poetry is used to accomplish a variety of goals. A poem can extol the beauty of a lover, commentate on social and political issues, or admire the loveliness of a landscape. Poetry can also be used to present philosophical or theological arguments in a form that will be widely read by a large audience. The Pearl poem is a work with clearly theological overtones. While many scholars focus on The Pearl poem as an allegorical or symbolic work, many miss the theology that shapes the poem. The Pearl is theological in nature, and the author makes a bold assertion that goes against many of the accepted theological opinions of his day. Though the author of The Pearl lived in a works-based society, he did not hold to this theological view. Rather, the author makes a strong argument for salvation by grace alone. This paper will discuss the theological concept of Pelagianism and argue that The Pearl poem is essentially an anti-Pelagian work.

In order to fully understand the importance of the theological assertions within The Pearl, it is necessary to look at it in its historical context. The author of The Pearl is unknown and many have speculated as to who the author could have been. Due to his great knowledge of theology and the classics, it is argued that the Pearl-poet “was in all probability a clerk.”[1] Carleton F. Brown asserts, “One finds evidence of theological training in the intimate acquaintance with the Bible which the author of The Pearl everywhere displays.”[2] Though the exact date of the work is unknown, scholars estimate that this poem was written after 1360.[3]

The Pearl was written during a time of great change in England. Charles Moorman states, “The late fourteenth century was in every way a century of contrasting and shifting values.”[4] Catholicism was beginning to break down, and the unity of medieval “social, political, and religious thought” began to dissolve.[5] The author thus lived during the closing of an era, and his ideas represent the new era that was to come.

The Pearl-poet lived during a time of great theological controversy. During this time period, theologians debated about two central theological issues: predestination and free will, and the importance of grace in salvation.[6] Brown explains further that this controversy stemmed from the Augustinian and Pelagian controversy of the Patristic era, and that the Pelagian view was widely accepted in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.[7] According to Brown, “Emphasis was laid more on and more upon man’s free-will and consequently upon the positive merit obtainable by right conduct, while the doctrine of Augustine, that salvation was entirely a matter of predestination and divine grace, was pushed into the background.”[8]

In order to understand the importance of the theological assertions within The Pearl poem, it is important to begin by understanding the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius was a British monk who lived at the beginning of the fifth century.[9] Pelagius emphasized man’s free will and brought into question the necessity of grace leading to salvation. According to Warfield, the heresy of Pelagius “consisted not in the emphasis he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace.”[10] In essence, Pelagius called into question the total depravity of man. The Pelagian controversy was an assault to the very foundations of Christianity. Warfield goes on to state, “The real question at issue was whether there was any real need for Christianity at all; whether by his own power man might not attain eternal felicity; whether the function of Christianity was to save, or only to render an eternity of happiness more easily attainable to man.”[11] Clearly, Pelagianism was no small issue and was not to be taken lightly.

Essentially, Pelagianism called into question whether or not the grace of God was needed for the salvation of man. According to Pelagius, man was able “to do all that righteousness can demand—to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection.”[12] In other words, Pelagius placed man’s salvation totally in the power of man himself rather than in the grace and power of God working in the lives of men. Pelagius argued that God would not demand that man do something that was impossible. In Pelagius’s mind, if total depravity was indeed true, then man could not follow God’s command to be perfect even as he is perfect. Man’s sin would keep him away from the perfection which God demands, and thus man would not be able to fulfill the command of God. Warfield explains it in this way: “God had endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action, and it was for him to use it. Man was thus a machine, which, just because it was well made, needed no divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.”[13] In Pelagius’s mind, because God created man with the ability and the capacity to perform everything he asked of them, there was no need for God to become involved in the life of man.

When Pelagius spoke of grace, he meant something quite different than what most theologians accept as truth. The Pelagian view of grace “meant…the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holy example.”[14] Essentially, Pelagians argued for merely external help. Because God has endowed man with the ability to follow God’s law, man does not need God to work inwardly within his heart. Rather, God sent Christ in order to provide an example of proper and right behavior. Through observing the impeccable, perfect behavior of Christ, man is able to gain a better understanding of the proper way he is to act. Thus, the work of Christ does not serve to actually aid and benefit man’s soul, but simply to provide him with an example of correct living.

Augustine stood in direct opposition to Pelagius’s views and argued for the necessity of God’s grace in the salvation of mankind. Augustine held to the belief that God originally created man as a perfect being “and endowed him with human faculties, including free will.”[15] Adam, however, abused his free will, chose to sin, and led to the downfall of the entire human race. Because all men are fallen and depraved, they are in need of God’s grace to restore them to a right relationship with him. For Augustine, then, “grace is assistance, help from God…[and] may be called spiritual aid.”[16] Thus, grace is not merely external but is also internal. Though Christ does indeed provide mankind with an example to follow, his death also provides the only means of salvation through the grace of God working upon a sinner’s heart. Augustine also points out that the Holy Spirit is poured out into the lives of believers in order to provide them with internal, not external, help.[17] Grace is given to man according to the goodness of God and is not based at all upon man’s merit.[18] Thus, in Augustine’s view, grace is necessarily the internal working of God upon the depraved soul of mankind.

This concept of the grace of God is very clearly seen throughout The Pearl, and it is evident that the Pearl-poet was keenly interested in the theological issues of his day. The concept of the grace of God in the lives of men is specifically seen in the dialogue between Pearl and the jeweler. As Pearl dialogues with the jeweler, she informs him that the Lamb has chosen her to be his bride and has “crowned [her] queen in bliss to shine.”[19] The jeweler is baffled by Pearl’s assertion and cannot understand how she, who died at so young an age, could merit such a favored and exalted position in heaven.[20] Part of his perplexity stems from the fact that the jeweler believes Mary to be the only queen of heaven, and cannot understand how one so young could supplant the Virgin’s sacred place.[21] Pearl patiently explains that she did not displace Mary, but that God allots each a place in heaven based upon his good will, and that all are content with whatever position he grants to them in heaven.[22]

Despite Pearl’s explanation, her father is still not satisfied with her answer. He simply cannot understand how she, who died at the young age of two, could possibly merit such a position of honor and esteem within God’s court. He states, “That courtesy gives its gifts too free, / If it be sooth that you now say.”[23] Thus, not only does the jeweler call Pearl into question, he also questions God’s decision to grant Pearl such a status. He states that it would be acceptable for Pearl to be “a countess, damsel…or lady of even less array, / but a queen! It is too high a place.”[24] In the jeweler’s mind, God has granted Pearl an absolutely unmerited and undeserved position.

Pearl responds to her father’s objections by appealing to the grace of God, and specifically appeals to God’s grace based upon the parable of the Vineyard. She states, “Neither time nor place his grace confine…/ For just is all he doth assign, / And nothing can He work but right.”[25] In the parable of the vineyard, the master hired various workers at different times of the day, but all received the same wages. Pearl directly “applies this parable to herself: it was eventide when she came to the vineyard, but she received the same reward with those who had toiled for years in the service of the Lord.”[26] Even after Pearl’s explanation of the parable, her father remains unconvinced. According to Rene Wellek, “The assertion that a baptized infant will receive equal reward with the adult is directly opposed to the established opinions of the theologians.”[27] The reaction of Pearl’s father illustrates the deeply entrenched views of the time.

Because her father still does not understand the basis for her position in heaven, Pearl launches into another explanation in which she specifically and repeatedly appeals to the grace of God. Brown believes that the Pearl-poet is making a deliberate, intentional theological point: “The author is laboring to prove that, since salvation is not at all a matter of merit but of grace, even a baptized child dying in infancy will receive in the heavenly kingdom a reward equal to that of the Christian who has lived a life of righteousness and holy works.”[28] Essentially, the author goes against the established viewpoint of the day and makes a bold assertion that there are no grades of reward in heaven, but that all merit lies in Christ alone, and all rewards are given solely based upon the grace and mercy of God.

Pearl’s father continues to find her explanations unreasonable and cannot wrap his mind around fathom the concept that God bestows grace and reward apart from works. Her father’s inability to understand echoes the commonly accepted position of the day. He continues to question Pearl about the high standing she has in heaven, and he reiterates that such a reward is unmerited and goes against everything he knows and has been taught.

To answer her father’s continued objections, Pearl’s argument takes on another edge in which she specifically and repeatedly argues for the grace of God over and above human merit. Her argument is made in five different sections, and she ends each section by stating, “For the grace of God is great enow.”[29] She begins the first section by explaining that the concept of “more or less” does not exist in the heavenly realm because Christ is supreme over all.[30] She refers back to her previous explanation of the Parable of the Vineyard and reiterates that all are of “equal hire” and each one gains whatever reward Christ chooses to give.[31] She goes on to state that it is Christ who gives pardon when sinful mankind bows to him and seeks forgiveness of sin. To emphasize her point, she ends by stating that the grace of God is good enough.

Pearl goes on to explain that she has not supplanted any position in heaven and that the reward given to her is not too costly. She points out to her father that many men turn away from the right path during the course of their lives, and that by dying at such a young age, she avoided falling into many sins that beset others. She once more appeals to the concept of mercy and grace, and states that all men must rely upon the mercy and grace of God to steer and direct their steps. Apart from God’s mercy and grace, man cannot benefit himself, cannot be pious, and cannot gain any eternal reward. Again, it is “the grace of God” that is good enough.[32]

Pearl also appeals to baptism as a means of grace. This notion of baptism plays an important role in understanding The Pearl poem in light of the Pelagian controversy. According to the theology of the day, baptism was “absolutely necessary for salvation.”[33] Augustine argued that infants who were baptized were effectually saved, but those who were not baptized were damned. Infant baptism was important to Augustine because he believed that every individual is born in sin, and even “those who die in infancy are, in Adam, children of wrath even as others.”[34] Thus, it is important that the Pearl-poet specifically refers to the necessity of infant baptism as a means to save an infant from eternal damnation. Because Pelagius did not believe in the doctrine of original sin, he did not espouse the necessity of infant baptism. By referring to infant baptism as a means of grace, the Pearl-poet displays his theological position.

As she explains the necessity of infant baptism, Pearl also expounds on the fact that those who die as infants have fulfilled the plan and purpose ordained for them. She reminds her father that even infants who die have “worked at [God’s] design.”[35] Because they have accomplished their divine purpose, they receive their due reward. Once again, Pearl reiterates that this reward is received because “the grace of God is great enow.”[36]

In the next segment of the poem, the Pearl-poet provides a staunchly anti-Pelagian viewpoint as Pearl discusses the fall of man and the salvation of Christ. This section of the poem begins by Pearl explaining that God originally created man as a perfect being who lived in perfect bliss.[37] However, Adam chose to partake of the forbidden fruit, and through that action he damned all mankind to eternal judgment. This viewpoint is anti-Pelagian in that it views Adam’s fall as affecting all of mankind. Because Adam chose to sin, his sin is now passed on to all men. Pearl goes on to explain that Christ came in order to heal man’s broken relationship to God, and that it is only through his shed blood that man can find forgiveness and restoration.[38] She ends by once again by stating that man can be reconciled to God because “the grace of God grew great enow.”[39]

Pearl continues to discuss the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in the next segment of the poem. She elaborates on the importance of both the blood and the water. The blood of Christ cleanses from sin, “redeem[s]…from the pains of hell,” and provides insurance against the second death.[40] The water refers to baptism. According to Pearl, it is necessary for both the blood and the water to work together in order to fully cleanse one from sin. It is the water of baptism that “washes away the trespass fell / By which Adam drowned us in deathly tide.”[41] In order to be redeemed and saved from the wretched plight of Adam, one must be cleansed in the blood of Christ and also go through the waters of baptism. Just as in every other segment, Pearl once again reiterates that God saves those whom he sets aside because his grace is good enough.

Pearl then goes on to discuss the necessity of grace working with repentance. In order for a man to receive the freely bestowed grace of God, he must first turn to God and seek forgiveness of sins. The Pearl-poet thus once again displays a clearly anti-Pelagian viewpoint. The author recognizes that salvation occurs through the grace of God and the work of Jesus Christ. The Pearl-poet does not present Christ as a mere example of right conduct and behavior but as the very means of the forgiveness of sins. Through stating that man must seek the grace of God through the salvation of Christ, the author once more illustrates that the work of Christ on the cross is necessary for the salvation of mankind. In and of himself, humanity cannot measure up simply through good works. The blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins are crucial to restoring man to a right relationship with God. It is only through the grace of God that mankind can be saved.

Throughout The Pearl, the author makes a strong theological argument for salvation by grace alone. The poet displays a strong understanding both of the theological position of his day and also clearly sets forth his own theological position within this work. This poem is essentially anti-Pelagian in nature and makes a very clear argument for salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

[1] Charles Moorman, The Pearl-Poet (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1968), 29.

[2] Carleton F. Brown, The Author of The Pearl Considered in Light of His Theological Opinions (Standford: The Modern language Association of America, 1904), 119-120.

[3] Moorman, 33.

[4] Ibid., 19.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Brown, 128.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Benjamin B. Warfield, “Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886), 9.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 10.

[12] Ibid., 11.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 12.

[15] Ibid., 79.

[16] Ibid., 80.

[17] Ibid., 81.

[18] Ibid.

[19] J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), 138.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Brown, 130.

[22] Tolkien, 139-140.

[23] Ibid., 141.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Brown, 131.

[27] Rene Wellek, “The Pearl: An Interpretation of the Middle-English Poem,” in The Pearl, 11.

[28] Brown, 132.

[29] Tolkien, 145.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid., 146.

[33] Warfield, 85.

[34] Ibid., 86.

[35] Tolkien, 146.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 147.

[41] Ibid.

Tick-Tock Clock

2009-10-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

Man is no match for death. Though man may try to elude or outsmart death, he will ultimately fall prey to it in the end. In his short story “The Masque of the Red Death,” Edgar Allan Poe illustrates man’s attempt to escape from the reality of death. In this story, Poe uses the ebony clock as a symbol of human mortality and as a reminder that man cannot evade death. The symbolic nature of the clock is clearly seen through the location of the clock, its voice, the effect it has on its hearers, and in its expiration at the end of the story.
The very location of the clock provides evidence of its symbolic nature. The clock is located in the room of black velvet and scarlet window panes, a room that is significant because all three of these elements serve to foreshadow the impending approach of the Red Death (209). The black interior of the room and the “blood-tinted panes” create a sense of disquiet in those who enter, and the presence of the ebony clock within this room further enhances their sense of uneasiness (207-208). As the night of dancing and revelry progresses, the merrymakers abandon this room altogether because it has an eerie quality and because they wish to place themselves as far away from the sound of the clock as possible (208). The revelers occupy the other apartments because “in them beat feverishly the heart of life” (208). This statement that life beats in all the other rooms serves as evidence that the heart of life does not beat in the “westwardly chamber” (208). They avoid the room with the scarlet panes and ebony clock because it is both foreboding and terrifying. The feeling of inexplicable dread that they experience both when they enter this room and when they hear the clock strike serves to illustrate that these individuals do not wish to be reminded of their own mortality.
The symbolic nature of the ebony clock is clearly seen in its voice. When the clock strikes every hour, its voice drowns out every other sound (207-208). The bold tone of the clock thus demands the attention of its hearers (207). There is nowhere the revelers can go to escape from its infernal chiming. Its “brazen lungs” peal out every hour, and every hour “all is still, and all is silent save the voice of the clock” (207-208). There is “a peculiar note and emphasis” present within the clock that compels those present to take notice (207). The sonorous voice of the clock thus serves to foreshadow the inevitability of death. Though this group of individuals seeks to escape from the reality of death present in the outside world, the presence of the clock and its hourly chiming provide a reminder that it is only a matter of time before death comes to all men.
Not only does the clock have a persistent voice, but the sound of its chime also has a strong effect on its hearers. The clock strikes a certain element of fear into the hearts of all those who hear it. As the chime of the clock rings out and everything stands in hushed silence, “it was observed that the giddiest grew pale, and the more aged and sedate passed their hands over their brows as if in confused reverie or meditation” (207). This reaction to the sound of the clock clearly points to human mortality. Those who hear the echoes of the clock are reminded that, though they are secluded in the midst of the abbey, time still passes with distinct regularity. The effect of the clock thus serves as a reminder of transience. Those present at the masquerade live in the seclusion of the abbey because they believe that by living in this sheltered manner they will not fall prey to the death ravaging the country outside (203). The hourly striking of the clock, however, beats steadily towards the grave.
The symbolic imagery of the clock culminates in the expiration of the clock at the end of the story. Throughout the narrative, the clock chimes every hour on the hour, pealing forth the approach of impending doom. When the last echoes of the clock fade away at midnight, the spectral figure of the Red Death appears (209). The fact that the Red Death arrives in concurrence with the striking of the clock illustrates the clock’s symbolic meaning. With the appearance of the Red Death, the revelers must come face-to-face with their own mortality (209). That which they seek to elude has finally caught up to them.
The fact that the spectral image of the Red Death comes to rest in the shadow of the ebony clock reveals a connection between the clock and death (210). As the revelers gaze upon the spectral figure standing before the ebony clock, they realize the futility of their attempts to cheat death (211). In the end, death has come upon them “like a thief in the night” (211). The revelers then begin to drop “one by one…in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel” (211). Though they had all scrupulously avoided this room, all of those at the masquerade perish in the scarlet-paned room in shadow of the ebony clock. Because they are human, they are slaves to time and thus to morality.
Not only do the people expire in the presence of the ebony clock, but the clock itself ceases to function as the last reveler perishes (211). The fact that the clock expires with the last of the merrymakers reveals the symbolic nature of the clock. Throughout the story, the clock serves as a warning and somber reminder that man is mortal and a slave to time. Now, as the Red Death claims the life of those who have sought to elude him, the work of the ebony clock is done.
Ultimately, man is bound by death. Despite his best efforts to avoid the inevitable, all men are mortal and their days numbered. Edgar Allen Poe’s use of the ebony clock as a symbol of human mortality clearly shows the futility of man’s attempts to avoid death. Throughout “The Masque of the Red Death,” the ebony clock also serves as a haunting reminder that man is transient and bound by time. Though man may think he has outsmarted death and even ignore the reminders of his own transience, he will fall prey to death in the end.

Poetic Justice in Milton's Samson Agonistes

2009-05-08T21:32:00.000-07:00

God is a God of justice. He rewards the good according to their virtue and punishes the wicked according to their vice. The concept of justice is clearly evident within John Milton’s poem Samson Agonistes. In this work, poetic justice is seen in Samson’s punishment, his repentance, and in the defeat of the Philistines.

In the beginning of the poem, Samson fully acknowledges the justice of God. He freely admits his pride and his weak-mindedness (52, 55). His lack of wisdom and intellectual blindness has led to his present slavery and his state of physical blindness (66-67). Because he freely acknowledges his sin, he is also able to recognize and accept the justice of God. John Ebbs states, “[Samson] bears no malice toward God for the punishment he has received; on the contrary, he feels that God’s ways are just” (383). Though Samson does not understand why God gave him such strength and then allowed his downfall, he realizes that he “must not quarrel with the will / Of highest dispensation, which herein / Haply had ends above [his] reach to know” (60-62). Though his punishment causes him to despair, he realizes he is not punished above merit. The Chorus likewise acknowledges the justice of God. Poetic justice is seen when they remind Samson that he could only be effective “while virtue was [the] mate” of his strength (173). According to E. M. W. Tillyard, “[Pride] was the primal cause of Samson’s fall” (337). Samson fell to sin because he allowed pride to take over his mind and thus replace virtue with vice. Rather than rely upon God as the source of his strength and power, he looked to and placed confidence within himself. Poetic justice is thus seen in that God only blesses Samson when he walks according to virtue, and punishment comes when he succumbs to vice.

After the Chorus reminds Samson of the poetic justice of God, they urge him not to lose hope. They encourage him to “tax not divine disposal,” because God may yet bring about some good from this evil (210). They reassure him of the justice of God, stating, “Just are the ways of God, / And justifiable to men” (294). Samson is charged not to “give the reigns to wand’ring thought” or doubt the just decrees of God (300-303). Though man may not fully understand the ways God works, his just nature should not be doubted.

While Samson and the Chorus realize and accept the justice of God, Manoa struggles with the punishment that God has inflicted upon his son. Though he realizes that Samson sinned by placing “ever-failing trust / In mortal strength,” he questions the judgment of God. Manoa cannot understand why God would gift Samson with such great strength since that very gift has led to Samson’s downfall (358-360). Manoa also cannot understand the magnitude of God’s punishment. He states, “Methinks whom God hath chosen once / To worthiest deeds, if he through frailty err, / He should not so o’erwhelm, and as thrall / Subject him to so foul indignities” (368-371). In Manoa’s mind, God’s punishment is disproportionate to Samson’s actual crime and thus does not display true justice.
Samson gently rebukes his father for questioning God’s justice. He tells his father, “Nothing of all these evils hath befall’n me / But justly; I myself have brought them on, / sole author I, sole cause” (374-376). According to John S. Bennett, the idea of God’s justice is very important to Samson for the following reasons:
A just God does not reward evil or punish virtue; if a person feels an affliction to be from God—that is, if he experiences a sense during his tribulations of heaven’s desertion—then he must accept his suffering as merited, and its justice a8s comprehensible; he must seek out its cause and its cure. The spiritual fall of a moral creature is always the result of sin. (323)
Samson acknowledges that God’s punishment is indeed a result of sin. He is grieved over his sin and despondent in his punishment, but he does not doubt the justice of the punishment as he is fully cognizant of his own sin.

As Samson speaks with his father, he comes to an even deeper realization of the gravity of his sin. Manoa points out that Samson’s downfall has led the Philistines to honor their pagan god, “and God, / Besides whom is no God, compared with idols, / Disglorified, blasphemed, and had in scorn / By th’ idolatrous rout amidst their wine” (440-443). Though Samson places full faith in God’s ability to act and defend his name among the pagans, the gravity of his sins also crushes him. He states that he deserves to “pay…[his] punishment; and expiate, if possible, [his] crime” (489-490).

Samson’s belief in the justice of God leads him to repentance—the correct response to judgment and punishment. According to Krouse, “Repentance is expressed in nearly every utterance of Samson in the poem. He has been humbled, and he is now thoroughly ashamed of his former pride, his reliance on mere physical prowess, his garrulity and weakness in revealing God’s secret” (104). Though Samson acknowledges that his punishment is deserved, he continues to place hope in the mercy of God. He does not “yet despair of his final pardon / Whose ear is ever open; and his eye / Gracious to re-admit the suppliant” (1171-1173).

The encounter between Harapha and Samson foreshadows the poetic justice which God will bring about against the Philistines. When Harapha comes to Samson and derides the Most High God, Samson responds by placing his faith in God’s ability. He shows humility and confidence in the forgiveness of God when he states that, if God so desires, he could provide Samson with the strength to fight and prevail against Harapha (1176-1177). Harapha derides him and points out that he is now enslaved to the very people he had set out to conquer (1124-1126).

In the end, however, Samson does indeed deliver his people from the yoke of the Philistines. When the Philistine officer arrives to bring Samson to Dagon’s feast, he states that he “shall [not] abuse [his] consecrated gift / Of strength, again returning with [his] hair” and use it for the glory of false gods (1354-1355). He has learned the lesson of his past transgression and refuses to “add a greater sin / By prostituting holy things to idols” (1357-1358). He agrees to go with the messenger only when he feels the stirring of God within his heart urge him (1381-1389). James H. Holly makes the following observation: “By confronting his own guilt without evasion, and by resisting the temptation to doubt that God’s ways are just or to fear for the ultimate triumph of his cause, Samson has won the right to be put to proof a second time” (287). In other words, Samson’s correct response to the judgment of God and his attitude of repentance has allowed Samson to fulfill the purpose promised him at birth. As he leaves, the Chorus foreshadows the coming event when they pray that the Spirit that was once upon Samson will come upon him again in his time of need (1435-1437).

Manoa further foreshadows the poetic justice that is to come. He is convinced that Samson’s returning strength signals that God is going “to use him further yet in some great service” (1499). He believes that it would be useless for Samson to wallow idly in misery and blindness for the rest of his days and thus clings to the hope that God will restore Samson’s strength. Even as Manoa speaks these words, the sounds of desolation reach him from a distance. The Chorus cries out that Samson “is slaying them” and that the uproar comes from the slaughter of the foe (1517-1518).

The messenger brings news of the ultimate destruction of the Philistines. Samson is indeed the perpetrator of justice upon the Philistines. His death “sets all free” and he has “paid his ransom now and full discharge” (1571-1572). Ebbs states, “Poetic justice has been shown, for Providence has rendered eternal punishment on the idolatrous Philistines, and Samson has been given his glorious reward” (388). Samson has repented of his sin, confessed his fault, and returned to virtue. And this return to virtue is rewarded by God.

Though the decrees and judgments of God do not always make sense to humankind, the ways of God are always just. He humbles the proud and exalts the humble. This concept of poetic justice is clearly seen throughout Samson Agonistes. God punishes the pride of Samson, rewards his repentance, and ultimately uses him to bring about the destruction of his enemies.

Works Cited
Bennett, John S. “A Reading of Samson Agonistes.” The Cambridge Companion to Milton. Ed. Dennis Danielson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 218-239.
Ebbs, John Dale. “Milton’s Treatment of Poetic Justice in Samson Agonistes.” Modern Language Quarterly 22 (1961): 377-389.
Hanford, James Holly. A Milton Handbook. New York: F. S. Croft & Co., 1954.
Krouse, F. Michael. Milton’s Samson and the Christian Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.
Milton, John. Samson Agonistes. The Complete Poems. Penguin Books: London, 1998. 465-511.
Tillyard, E. M. W. Milton. London: Chatto and Windus, 1930.

Divine Light: Two Views

2009-04-07T18:38:00.000-07:00

According to Ecclesiastes 3:11, God has placed eternity within the hearts of all men. Whether consciously aware of it or not, man has a thirst and hunger for that which transcends humanity. This desire for the transcendent is seen within the works “A Divine and Supernatural Light” by Jonathan Edwards and “Nature” by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Both of these works explore the concept of divine knowledge, addressing man’s innate desire for something greater than himself. Although these works both contain a similar theme, the authors come to different conclusions about the way in which divine light can be obtained, the way in which it is revealed, and the way in which man needs redemption.

In “Nature,” Ralph Waldo Emerson emphasizes the created order and operates under the belief that divine light can be obtained through creation. According to Emerson, “We must trust to the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy” (493). In other words, nature provides all answers to all questions. Rather than being merely material, nature also contains a spiritual element which is essential to its perfection (498). It is in the “eternal calm” of beauty that man finds himself (496). Nature serves to satisfy the soul’s desire for beauty and also the intellect’s desire for reason. It functions as a symbol of particular spiritual facts and also a symbol of spirit itself (500). Through looking at the natural realm, one comes into direct contact with the spiritual realm because nature, and thus man, is directly related to God (515).Thus in Emerson’s view, God plays no role in the direct communication of divine light.

Throughout “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” on the other hand, Jonathan Edwards argues that divine knowledge can only be wholly obtained through the person of Jesus Christ as he is revealed in scripture. Contrary to Emerson, Edwards argues that the divine and supernatural light is imparted to the soul through God and cannot be obtained by any purely natural means (182). He states that divine light cannot be realized merely through the imagination nor through what is simply seen “with the bodily eyes” (184). Edwards goes on to say, “A person may have affecting views of the things of religion, and yet be destitute of spiritual light” (185). In other words, no matter how engaged a man is in the pursuit of or perception of spiritual things, his knowledge is meaningless unless he has come to a true view of the divine light which is Jesus Christ. While nature can lend to the understanding of divine light, one cannot attain a true understanding of divine knowledge through purely natural means.

One main difference between Emerson and Edwards is their view of the ultimate revelation of divine knowledge. As previously seen, Emerson holds to the belief that man can find divine knowledge through the beauty of nature. Man rests upon God as a plant rests upon the earth and “has infinite access to the entire mind of the Creator, [and] is himself the creator in the finite” (515). In other words, humanity needs nothing more than nature to fully know the mind of the Creator. According to Edwards, however, divine knowledge must be given directly by God and cannot be obtained by natural means. Edwards states that “man was made to honor and glorify his Creator” (191). Rather than glorifying nature itself, man is to glorify the One who created nature and caused all things to come into being. Emerson views man as inherently good and thus not in need of the grace of God, while Edwards presents a view that requires the revelation of divine light to begin with God and be responded to by man.

Edwards also points out that there is a difference between God’s Word and man’s word. He states, “It is rational to suppose, that when God speaks to the world, there should be something in His word vastly different from men’s word” (190). While Emerson operates under the presupposition that nature is spiritual and thus serves as its own spiritual interpreter, Edwards propones that there is a difference between the spiritual and the natural which can only be understood through the divine revelation of God. While one can recognize the spiritual elements in the world apart from a true understanding of the divine light, one cannot truly understand those elements unless illumined by the divine light of Christ.

Emerson and Edwards also greatly differ in their views of redemption. According to Emerson, “The problem of restoring to the world original and eternal beauty is solved by the redemption of the soul” (518). He goes on to explain that this redemption comes about as the result of man becoming fully united with himself through nature. Redemption of the soul requires that man equally reconcile the natural with the spiritual and come to understand that “nature is not fixed but fluid. Spirit alters, moulds, makes it” (519). Each man must learn to use all of his faculties as a spiritual exercise in order that God may “go forth anew into the creation” (519). Again, Emerson focuses on the ability of man to fully obtain the spiritual apart from any actual interaction with God. In his view, nature is part of God and thus the revelation of God.

Edwards, however, presents a very different view of redemption. Indeed, the divine light of which Edwards speaks hinges upon the very person and work of Jesus Christ and the knowledge of this light involves the acceptance of the grace God freely offers. He states, “The scripture speaks of a knowledge of God’s dispensation, and covenant of mercy, and way of grace towards His people, as peculiar to the saints and given only by God” (189). Man has nothing to do with the impartation of the divine light. It is revealed by God to man as a means of redemption and reconciliation. Contrary to the view of Emerson, nature has nothing whatsoever to do with man receiving the divine and supernatural light. In Edward’s view, the things of God differ entirely from the things of man. He states, “We cannot rationally doubt but that things divine, which appertain to the supreme Being, are vastly different from the things that are human; that there is a high, glorious, and godlike excellency in them that does most remarkably difference them from the things that are of men” (190). Because the things of God are so different from the things of man, God chooses to reveal himself to man through a divine and supernatural light.

Emerson and Edwards provide two strikingly different views on the question of eternity within the hearts of man. Because God has created man as spiritual beings, he longs for the light that only God can reveal. But while Emerson and Edwards both acknowledge the need for the spiritual, they take very different approaches to how the spiritual may be obtained. In the end, the only way to obtain divine knowledge is through the revelation of God to man.

Works Cited
Edwards, Jonathan. “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. Norton & Company, 2008. 181-193.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Nature.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. Norton & Company, 2008. 492-519.

John Donne: "Batter my heart..."

2009-03-03T18:33:00.000-08:00

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for, you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like a usurped town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captivated, and proves weak or untrue,
Yet dearly'I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy,
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthral me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Singleness: A Blessing Or A Curse?

2009-01-20T21:40:00.000-08:00

According to a recent survey by Barna, “more than four out of every ten adults in the United States [are] not married.”[1] He goes on to note that with such a proportion, the number of single people in the United States alone “is larger than the total national population of all but eleven of the world’s 192 nations.”[2] Based on these numbers, it seems necessary to address the number of single people present within the American church today. According to David L. Smith, “one out of every three adults” in the Christian community is single.[3] Unfortunately, many churches today do not address the large single population within their churches. In many contexts, singleness is viewed as abnormal and looked down upon by members of the church. Many singles seem to see their time of singleness as nothing more than a middle ground between adolescence and marriage and seem to be at a loss as to how to occupy the time in between. While marriage is indeed a gift from God, it is important for single people to also view their time of singleness as a special time from God. This paper will look at the issue of singleness, arguing that singleness should be viewed as a gift from God and that single people should use their time of singleness to minister within the local church.

The main New Testament text used to discuss singleness is 1 Corinthians 7. In this passage, Paul provides three specific sets of instructions: first, all individuals, whether single or married, are to remain as they are and find contentment in their current status (1 Cor. 7:8-11). Second, certain individuals should avoid marrying in light of the “present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). Lastly, Paul states that singleness is favorable in that a single person can be more concerned about the things of the Lord than can a married person (1 Cor. 7:32-35).

According to Rosner, “Paul’s basic advice in every case is not to seek a change in status; the married ought not to seek divorce and the unmarried ought not to seek marriage. The guiding principle of contentment in one’s life situation is taken up directly and reinforced.”[4] Paul exhorts the Corinthians to live “as the Lord has assigned to each” (1 Cor. 7:17). According to Garland, it is important for each one to live according to God’s specific calling because “to try to become something one is not or to expect others to do so is a recipe for disaster.”[5] According to Hoffeditz, “Paul does not pit the two marital states against each other, but stresses the significance of each gift. Both are given by God.”[6]Regardless of whether one is married or single, one should ultimately conduct oneself in a way that is pleasing to God and fulfills God’s calling.[7]

The second thing Paul addresses in this chapter is “this present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). Much speculation exists as to the exact nature of the distress Paul refers to. According to Garland, “End-time circumstances determine his advice, but his comments reveal that he would regard the unmarried state as preferable, regardless of imminent end, because marriage necessitates dividing one’s loyalties between pleasing a spouse and serving God.”[8] According to Hoffeditz, “Marriage can distract from the truth that we are pilgrims in this world and that our citizenship is in heaven. Singleness creates looser ties with this world and directs our attention to the promises of an immediate future.”[9] Rosner also agrees with this view, stating that Paul seeks to provide Christians with an eschatological perspective and to remind them that this world is temporary and that they should not become overly immersed in the world.[10]

Lastly, Paul states that believers may remain single in order to serve the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-35). He points out that the married life brings many troubles with it, and it is thus appropriate for the single man to stay as he is.[11] Calvin goes on to explain, “Paul wishes Christians to be free from anxieties so that they may devote all their thoughts and efforts to the Lord.”[12] Singleness is acceptable when the single person is using his time to serve God wholeheartedly. The single person is able to serve God in an even greater capacity than the married person because he does not have the same cares and concerns as a married person. Singleness is thus preferable “so that we might cleave to God, with nothing to separate us from Him.”[13]

The early church fathers seemed to view singleness as preferable to marriage, but while celibacy was encouraged, it was not mandated. Tertullian argued that celibacy is preferable to marriage, but he also clearly stated that it is better to marry than to fornicate.[14] Clement of Alexandria also maintained the view of celibacy as best but marriage as good. He states, “Our view is that we welcome as blessed the state of abstinence from marriage in those to whom it has been granted by God.”[15]

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church began to require celibacy among the clergy as well as the monastic orders. Indeed, celibacy was “rigidly imposed by Church law upon all members of religious orders and all clergy above a certain rank.”[16] According to Bainton, “The imposition of clerical celibacy in the Middle Ages met with restricted success.”[17] Many among the clergy refused to leave their wives and many possessed concubines. The standard of celibacy was thus hypocritical and not held in high regard by many monks and clergymen.

The Reformers staunchly opposed the enforced celibacy of the Church.[18] They believed that the possibilities of sinning through hypocritical celibacy were greater than those which could be committed in marriage.[19] According to Bainton, “Nowhere did the Reformation introduce a greater change than in domestic relations. Religious celibacy was repudiated in favor of marriage.”[20] According to Wilson, “Martin Luther has bequeathed to the contemporary church perhaps the most significant legacy on the issue of singleness and marriage.”[21] Luther argued for an end to unchaste chastity and stressed Paul’s mandate that it is better to marry than to burn with passion.[22] In Luther’s mind, chastity was not impossible, but he believed that the unmarried would suffer from their lack of sexual gratification, and thus marriage was better than monasticism.[23] According to Luther, there are three different states: marriage, virginity, and widowhood. “They are all good. None is to be despised. The virgin is not to be esteemed above the widow, nor the widow above the wife, any more than the tailor is to be esteemed above the butcher.”[24] In other words, the Reformers affirmed the legitimacy of both marriage and singleness as found in 1 Corinthians 7.

How should the church view singleness? Should it be looked down upon as a disease which needs a cure? Or should it be viewed as a gift to be used for God’s glory? Based on the Scriptural evidence, it seems that both singleness and marriage are affirmed by God and that both are seen as gifts that, though different, can be used for God’s glory. Two biblical characters stand out to exemplify the way in which God can use singles in ministry. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah was commanded not to marry (Jer. 16:1-2). In Jeremiah’s case, he was able to serve God in a greater capacity because of his singleness. Due to the hard times in which he lived, it was expedient that he forego marriage in order to be free from distraction and greater trouble.

The apostle Paul also remained single throughout his entire ministry. Indeed, his exhortation to the community of singles at Corinth urges them to remain as he is—serving the Lord in a state of singleness (1 Cor. 7:7). Though single, Paul had an abundant, fruitful ministry for the Lord. Far from being limited by his singleness, Paul used it as a gift from God for the furtherance of the gospel and the edification of the church.

The issue of singleness remains very prevalent in the church today. While the number of singles attending church continues to grow, it seems that the issue of singleness is rarely addressed or, when it is addressed, is viewed in a negative light. While some affirm the single lifestyle, some condemn it and even view it as unnatural. According to Raymond Brown, “Seldom do singles find the suggestion that a single is anything but an incomplete couple or that to be single can be a fulfilling, rewarding, freely chosen life-style, rather than a fearful lonely waiting ground for marriage.”[25] Brown goes on to say that many singles find that the church is geared more towards the family unit, and many singles feel left out of the body as a result.[26] While it is indeed important for the church to develop a strong support of the family, it is likewise important that this support of the family not result in the exclusion of singles. Rather than choosing to be uninvolved in the life of the church, single people should become deeply involved in ministry within the community of Christ.

Wilson points out, “It is interesting how the unmarried person is seen automatically as having more time to serve God and the married person as having less.”[27] Being single most certainly does not exclude someone from ministering within the local church. Indeed, single people should be some of the most involved people in the local church. According to Andrew Farmer, single adults have “a precious opportunity to make an impact on this world, but that opportunity begins through serving in the context of a local church, God’s tangible presence in the world.”[28] Rather than seeking to be served and have their needs catered to, singles should make a conscious, deliberate effort to become plugged into the life and ministry of the church.

Many singles struggle with loneliness and a lack of contentment. Brown points out, “Some people experience loneliness and isolation partly because they avoid intimacy.”[29] H. I Smith points out, “Many singles are hamstrung by a poor self-image. To some the word single is as offensive as a racial slur. Some have built high walls around their spirits to discourage penetration. So they live in a self-designed prison.”[30] Rather than cutting themselves off from others and holding their own personal pity party, singles should rather seek to become involved in the community of the church and develop lasting relationships with fellow believers in the church. Indeed, “reaching out to new friends is a necessary skill for the single adult.”[31] Humans have been created as relational beings. Without developing intimate relationships with other believers, the life of a single person will indeed seem empty and unsatisfying.

Smith argues that the word “intimacy” needs to be brought back from its merely sexual connotation.[32] He points out that “Jesus’ framework for intimacy was not in marriage, but in close friendships.”[33] Smith urges singles to pursue intimate relationships with others of their own sex and not be governed by the fear that others may interpret a good friendship as a homosexual relationship.[34] He concludes, “The church has too long allowed the world to define what friendship and intimacy are all about. It is time that it regained the initiative. It needs to encourage all adults—married and single alike—to develop meaningful and satisfying relationships.”[35]

Closely related to the concept of intimacy and deep friendships is that of community. According to Smith, “A sense of community has its roots deep in the Scriptures.”[36] Christ confirmed the necessity of community among believers (John 13:35). Smith argues, “The contemporary church desperately needs to recover the New Testament practice of community.”[37] Indeed, a proper sense of community needs to be maintained between both married and single people. Married people should not exclude single people from the life of the church merely because they are not married. Nor should married people seek to couple up singles.[38] Rather, married adults should seek to encourage and build up single adults without viewing single adults as lesser individuals because of their singleness.

Singles should also avoid viewing their time of singleness as “me time.” Hoffeditz points out, “The unmarried life is not about self-indulgence but about selflessness. It is about glorifying the Lord in a unique manner.”[39] Again, singles should use this time to develop a God-ward and, as a result, an others-oriented focus. To view one’s time of singleness as nothing more than an opportunity to indulge in selfishness is to miss the point altogether. Rather, singles should seek to glorify God and serve the local church, using this time in their lives to be effective in ministry in ways that would be difficult once married. The single adult should arrange his time in such a way that the church is at the top of his priorities.

Singleness should indeed be viewed as a gift. Rather than becoming bitter about their singleness, singles should use that time in their lives to effectively serve the body of Christ. While marriage is certainly a gift from God, singleness is likewise a gift. While it is not wrong for singles to desire and pursue marriage, they should not become so caught up in that pursuit that they neglect to serve Christ and his body.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bainton, Roland Herbert. Early and Medieval Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962.

_____. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Abington-Cokesbury Press, 1950.

_____. Sex, Love, and Marriage: A Christian Survey. London: Collins, 1966.

Brown, Raymond Kay. Reach Out to Singles: A Challenge to Ministry. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Farmer, Andrew. The Rich Single Life: Abundance, Opportunity & Purpose in God. Gaithersburg: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1998.

Hoffeditz, David M. They Were Single Too: 8 Biblical Role Models. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Lea, Henry Charles. An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955.

_____. Reformation Writings. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: Lutterworth Press, 1952.

_____. What Luther Says: An Anthology. Edited by Edwald M. Plass. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

Lyon, William. A Pew for One, Please: The Church and the Single Person. New York: Seabury Press, 1977.

May, Alistair Scott. The Body for the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1^st Corinthians 5-7. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Oulton, John Ernest Leonard, trans. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick. London: SCM Press, 1954.

Payne, Dorothy. Singleness. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Smith, David L. “Towards a Theology of Singleness.” Didaskalia 1 (1989): 34-41.

Tertullian. Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy. Westminster: Newman Press, 1951.

Widder, Wendy. A Match Made in Heaven: How Singles and the Church Can Live Happily Ever After. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Wilson, Philip B. Being Single in the Church Today: Insights from History and Personal Stories. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishers, 2006

Yarbrough, O. Larry. Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

[1] George Barna, “A Revealing Look at Three Unique Single Adult Populations,” retrieved from

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=108

[2] Ibid.

[3] David L. Smith, “Towards a Theology of Singleness,” Didaskalia 1 (1989): 34.

[4] Brian S. Rosner, Paul., Scripture, & Ethics (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1994), 147.

[5] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, 2003), 302.

[6] David M. Hoffeditz, They Were Single Too: 8 Biblical Role Models (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

[7] Ibid., 304.

[8] Garland, 325.

[9] Hoffeditz, 15.

[10] Rosner, 163.

[11] John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 135.

[12] Ibid., 161.

[13] Ibid., 164.

[14] Tertullian, Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy (Westminster: Newman Press, 1951), 12.

[15] John Ernest Leonard Oulton, trans., Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick (London: SCM Press, 1954), 42.

[16] Euan Cameron (), 115.

[17] Bainton, Early and Medieval Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), 77.

[18] Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 151.

[19] Ibid., 402.

[20] Bainton, Early and Medieval Christianity, 173.

[21] Philip B. Wilson, Being Single In the Church Today: Insights from History and Personal Stories (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishers, 2006), 9-10.

[22] Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), 200.

[23] Ibid., 300.

[24] Ibid., 352.

[25] Raymond Kay Brown, Reach Out to Singles: A Challenge to Ministry (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1979), 26.

[26] Ιbid., 39.

[27] Wilson, 173.

[28] Andrew Farmer, The Rich Single Life: Abundance, Opportunity & Purpose in God (Gaithersburg: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1998), 74-75.

[29] Brown, 41.

[30] Harold Ivan Smith, Positively Single (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 142.

[31] Ibid., 39.

[32] Smith, 37.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., 38.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 39.

[38] Brown, 25.

[39] Hoffeditz, 16.

The Happy Medium

2008-09-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

Virtue—honor—justice. Throughout the centuries, these words have conjured up a plethora of images. Honor may come to mind in the form of a knight in shining armor, virtue in the form of a young maiden, and justice in the form of a presiding judge. Men have been fascinated with these concepts for generations, seeking to understand what they are and how they can best be applied to society. In Books IV and V of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that in order to rightly apply virtue and justice, one must find the proper balance and act accordingly. According to Aristotle, there is a fine line to be drawn between virtue and vice.

Aristotle differentiates between “the laudable mediums which are the virtues” and then “defines the mediums that are not virtues but passions.”[1] The man of true character is one who is willing to disregard himself in order to give freely to others. A virtuous man contains liberality of character and acts with correct motivation. According to Oates, the doctrine of the mean is “absolutely central to his conception of ethical values,” and Aristotle provides evidences of the mean within virtue.[2] Aristotle’s various concepts of virtues and vices are perfectly illustrated in many of the characters within Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. In order to better understand Aristotle’s concept of the virtuous man, it is helpful to see how these principles can be applied within actual personalities.

The character of the Parson within The Canterbury Tales illustrates an individual who displays a balance of virtue. The Parson follows the Aristotelian concept that the truly virtuous man is one who understands proper balance and is not given to excess.[3] He is a temperate man in that he realizes that he has little and therefore lives according to his means.[4] He further meets Aristotle’s definition of a liberal man in that he displays goodness and excellence. He exhibits liberality in that he shows moderation in both giving and taking. He realizes the extent of his fortune and is willing to give as he is able. He thus follows Aristotle’s model of the liberal man as one who disregards self but at the same time displays moderation.[5] Throughout Book IV of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle places great emphasis upon the character with which one performs an act rather than merely upon the act itself. It is quite possible to perform a right and noble action with completely wrong and ignoble motives. The character of the Parson provides an example of one who is truly noble and liberal minded in that he shows fair behavior, gives according to the mean, and follows the very things which he teaches.[6]

Not only does Aristotle speak of virtues, he also differentiates between “the laudable mediums which are the virtues” and then “defines the mediums that are not virtues but passions.”[7] In other words, Aristotle provides examples of virtues which have been carried too far and have thus become vices. One such vice is illiberality. Illiberality could be defined both as deficiency in giving and excess in taking.[8] The character of the Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales provides a prime example of the illiberal man. The Pardoner displays excess in taking when he swindles those around him in order to gain.[9] While the one who observes the mean is “always himself” and truthful in all things,[10] an illiberal man such as the Pardoner tells deliberate falsehoods in order to increase his gain.[11]

According to Aristotle, the prospects of a cure for the illiberal man such as the Pardoner are bleak.[12] Aquinas states the following two reasons for the incurable nature of illiberality: first, “human life tends to be defective;” and secondly, “that to which man is naturally inclined cannot easily be removed from him.”[13] An illiberal man cannot be cured of his illiberality because he has deliberately cultivated it over time. Rather than choosing to cultivate goodness of character by following the mean, “vicious character is a tendency to exceed or fall short of the Mean.”[14] One who continually follows the tendency to exceed or fall short thus becomes caught up in a pattern which eventually cannot be broken—he becomes the illiberal man.

Aristotle’s discussion of personal virtue provides a natural segue into the consideration of justice. In Book IV, Aristotle discusses the concept of internal virtue or the cultivation of one’s character. In Book V, Aristotle speaks of justice which is an external display of internal virtue. According to Aristotle, justice is complete virtue “because he that has it is able to exhibit virtue in dealing with his neighbors, and not merely in his private affairs.”[15] The theme of Book V is “the application of the doctrine of the Mean to justice,” and each topic treated within the book relates back to the Mean.[16]

Aristotle discusses two kinds of justice. The first type of justice consists of the distribution of common goods.[17] This concept of common goods refers to things such as the establishment of enterprises. The second category of justice is that of transactions which take place between two specific individuals. This form of justice relates to the proper exchange of goods between two people. Transactions between two people should not result in inequality, but should be a fair exchange of goods.[18] In both forms of justice, “the just outcome is a mean between unfair gain and unfair loss.”[19] The character of the Pardoner, for example, would be considered unjust because he receives more than his due benefit. True justice in transactions requires that the mean be preserved in that both parties benefit equally.

True virtue requires the cultivation of balance in all things. Without the development of personal virtue, justice could not exist within a society. The development of personal virtue is then displayed in the way people relate to one another within society. According to Aristotle’s view, virtue and justice require that moderation be observed in all things.

[1] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1993), 287.
[2] Whitney Jennings Oates, Aristotle and the Problem of Value (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 274.
[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 68.
[4] Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 16.
[5] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 67.
[6] Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 16-17.
[7] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1993), 287.
[8] Aristotle, 70.
[9] Chaucer, 243.
[10] Aristotle, 84.
[11] Chaucer, 242.
[12] Aristotle, 69.
[13] Aquinas, 306.
[14] D. J. Allen, The Philosophy of Aristotle (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 171.
[15] Aristotle, 91.
[16] W. F. R. Hardie, Aristotle’s Ethical Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 184.
[17] D. S. Hutchinson, The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 222.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Hutchinson, 223.

Saved In Childbearing? A Look at 1 Timothy 2:15

2008-05-16T06:24:00.000-07:00

The proper role of women within Christianity has long been a topic of hot debate and argument. In a culture that is being overrun by feministic ideas, it is important to keep a proper understanding of the function of women within the church. Rather than viewing passages such as 1 Timothy 2:15 as limiting the role of women to bearing children, it is important to take passages such as these in their proper context and arrive at a correct understanding of their practical and theological implications. This paper will look at several different interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:15, critically assessing them, and concluding that this passage is referring to the Christological promise of Genesis 3.

In approaching the text of 1 Timothy 2:15[1], it is important to take it in its larger context. The verses preceding this passage discuss the proper role of women within church and ministry. The apostle Paul provides instructions for the proper attire and attitude of women (1 Tim. 2:9), stating that women should be characterized by godliness rather than external adornments (1 Tim. 2:10). Women should also receive instruction with a quiet and submissive attitude (1 Tim. 2:11), and they should not perform a teaching role within the church (1 Tim. 2:12). He further references the proper authority role of the man being the head of the woman by referring to the creation order of Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Verse 15 thus falls into the larger context of the role of women within the church and particularly follows the reference to the creation order of Adam and Eve.

In approaching verse 15, there are several grammatical and structural considerations that must be taken. First is the presence of the verb σωθήσεται. This verb appears in the third person passive future singular form and there is some debate as to what subject it refers to.
The debate occurs as a result of the second verb, μείνωσιν which appears in the aorist active subjunctive plural form. Some state that it is possible that the singular σωθήσεται refers to Eve while the plural μείνωσιν refers to Christian women in general.[2] Because there is no overt subject for the verb, “the subject of the verb corresponds in some way with the last mentioned possible antecedent,” γυνὴ.[3] Others conclude that there is far too great an emphasis placed upon the tense change within this passage and that based on the context, “there is no linguistic or grammatical distinction between the two” but that it is merely referencing women in general.[4] The argument has also been made that verses 13-14 were referring to Eve as “the representative of her sex, womankind,” and that through this example the apostle was illustrating the consequences of Eve’s mistake.[5] Thus the transition to the plural is merely reinforcing Paul’s use of Eve as personating womankind.[6] Argument also exists over the preposition διὰ, noting that the genitive form “denotes agency, by means of,” but διὰ can also mean “during.”[7] The passage could thus either mean that salvation occurs by means of childbearing or that salvation occurs during the act of childbearing.

There are several different interpretations of this passage. According to Kroeger, women being saved through childbirth refers to the promise to Eve that her seed will bring redemption, and that the apostle was also refuting Gnostic doctrines that had crept into the church.[8] Kroeger states, “This was precisely the complaint of the author of the pastoral Epistles: that stories out of the Jewish tradition are being told in a twisted form and that they are being heeded. The tales, peddled about by old women, express opposition to God and turn many away from the truth.”[9] According to this interpretation, the author of 1 Timothy is reinforcing the feministic role of women within the church and opposing the false teaching of the Gnostics which placed a greater emphasis on the importance of the man.

Stanley E. Porter also points out the prevalence of false doctrine within the church and the way in which the author addresses it. There were individuals who had crept into the church who were promoting unsound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) which was giving rise to “myths and endless genealogies” which caused speculation rather than serving to further true faith. They were following after devious spirits and the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1), and men were being told to refrain from marriage (1 Tim. 4:3).[10] As a result of these false doctrines, the author is writing to inform the believers of the proper way in which to order household affairs. “It is easy to conclude that the encouraging of ascetic practices, combined with shunning of the women’s domestic roles, resulted in sexual abstinence or similar practices which were considered by the author to have missed the mark.”[11] Thus, Porter argues, the author is encouraging the proper function of sexual relations within marriage, resulting in the bearing of children.

Another view states that this passage occurs in reference to the Imago Dei. According to William Hendriksen, for the Christian mother, birthing children allows women to see the image of God reflected in her child.[12] He states, “Child-bearing will be a means of salvation for the Christian mother, for what Christian mother does not experience the inner delight, joy, blessing, and glory in seeing the image of her Savior reflected in little ones who belong to him?”[13] Hendrikson further states that this passage also refers to the curse that was decreed upon Eve in that she must now submit to her husband, and experience pain in childbirth.[14] Those who disagree with this view point out that the word σώζω throughout the other Pauline writings “denotes a salvific spiritual act, perhaps eschatological in consequence.”[15] Thus, though the passage could refer to the Imago Dei, such an interpretation does not account for the language of σώζω.

Some offer the view that women’s proper role within the church exists through childbirth. According to Raymond F. Collins, “Woman finds her place in God’s salvific economy not in teaching and public ministry but in her domestic role, rearing godly children.”[16] He further states that although the bearing of children is not necessary in order to obtain salvation, it “fits into the plan of salvation when it is accompanied by faith, love, holiness, and modesty.”[17] In other words, the woman’s salvation occurs in that she is fulfilling her God-given function to bear and raise children. She participates in the community of worship through the godly raising and nurturing of children.

It seems most likely that 1 Timothy 2:15 should be viwed in the context of the references of verses 13-14 to Adam and Eve, arguing that this passage refers to the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. After the fall of man, God made a promise to Adam and Eve that the woman’s seed would bruise Satan on the head (Gen. 3:15). According to this pronouncement, salvation will thus proceed from the woman. Although “the serpent had deceived her, her posterity would defeat him.”[18] Stott further states, “Women ‘will be saved through the birth of the Child,’ referring to Christ. By this rendering, ‘saved’ has a spiritual connotation, ‘through’ is the means by which salvation comes, and the definite article before ‘childbearing’ in the Greek sentence is explained.”[19] Indeed, this explanation seems to make the most sense. The promise of salvation which was made to Eve was then fulfilled by the birth of Christ. Christ provides the means of both salvation and sanctification, which accounts for the command to continue to persevere in the faith. (1 Tim. 2:15b).

Childbearing is a function that was created by God and is a wonderful thing. 1 Timothy 2:15 should not be viewed as a chauvinistic attempt to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Rather, this passage is pointing to the beauty and eternal significance of the Child, Christ, who was brought forth into this world by a woman. Without the birth of Christ, salvation would not be possible for anyone. In the larger scheme, not only women but all of mankind can be saved as a result of the ultimate sacrifice made by our Savior.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark, Gordon H., The Pastoral Epistles. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1983.

Collins, Raymond F., I & II Timothy and Titus. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Fairbairn, Patrick, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

Hendrikson, William, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957.
Holmes, J. M., Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices in 1 Timothy 2.9-15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Kroeger, Richard Clark, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Porter, Stanley E., “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 87-102.

Stott, John, Guard the Truth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

[1] All Scripture citations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[2]Richard Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 172.
[3] J. M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15 (Sheffield: Shefield Academic Press Ltd), 262.
[4] Ibid., 262.
[5] Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), 131.
[6] Ibid., 131.
[7] Gordon H. Clark, The Pastoral Epistles (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation), 50.
[8] Richard Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 127, 172).
[9] Ibid., 127.
[10] Stanley E. Porter, “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 101.
[11] Ibid., 102.
[12] William Hendrikson, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957), 111.
[13] Ibid., 111.
[14] Ibid., 111.
[15] Stanley E. Porter, “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 101.
[16] Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, 77.
[17] Ibid., 77.
[18] John Stott, Guard the Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 87.
[19] Ibid., 87.

The Experience of Desire

2008-05-12T05:55:00.001-07:00

Human beings are deeply spiritual creatures. Men have spoken of, studied, debated and expressed belief in the spiritual and the supernatural for centuries. Although there is not a universal agreement as to who or what this spiritual knowledge is, it plays an important part in cultures throughout the world. The concept of the spiritual is also clearly evidenced within literature. A glimpse into the knowledge of the supernatural is seen within Eugene O’Neill’s play “Long Day’s Journey into Night.” Within this play, O’Neill expresses a spiritualism that leads to hopelessness and despair rather than to God and the fulfillment of longing. The presence of longing for the Other within O’Neill’s play expresses the innate longing and intense desire for God that is within all men. Although O’Neill believes this longing to ultimately be hopeless, the true actualization of this longing leads to God.

This longing and searching for the Other within mankind can best be expressed as Sehnsucht (pronounced "zane-zoot") which Corbin Carnell describes as “the pursuit of the unattainable” (Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect 21). The feeling of Sehnsucht occurs in those moments when man realizes that he is not all that is and that there is more to reality than this present world. In those moments, one experiences a feeling of acute Joy followed by a pang of grief once the sense of Joy has left. These moments of Joy transcend usual experience, leaving men with a feeling of Sehnsucht, or for a longing to obtain the unobtainable experience. According to Rudolf Otto, “That which is ‘mysterious’ is…the ‘wholly other,’ that which is quite beyond the sphere of the usual, the intelligible, and the familiar, which therefore falls quite outside the limits of the ‘canny,’ and is contrasted with it, filling the mind with blank wonder and astonishment” (The Idea of the Holy 26). Otto further states:
"The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its ‘profane,’ non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy" (13).
In other words, these experiences of intense Joy awaken within man a deep sense of awe as the experience transcends reality and cannot be described in terms of that which is tangible or knowable.

The concept of Sehnsucht is strongly evidenced in the character of Edmund within “Long Day’s Journey into Night.” As Edmund speaks with his father in Act four, he begins to share some “high spots” in his memories, all of which are associated with the sea (2131). The first experience occurred as Edmund was keeping the night watch on a rough night. Without warning, he “became drunk with the beauty and singing rhythm of it” (2131-2132). Edmund further says, “I lost myself—actually lost my life. I was set free! I belonged, without past or future, within peace and unity and wild joy, within something greater than my own life, or the life of Man, to Life itself!” (2132).

The second experience he describes occurred in the early dawn hours when the crew and passengers were all asleep. Edmund was “dreaming, not keeping lookout, feeling alone, and above, and apart” when suddenly “the moment of ecstatic freedom came” (2132). He expressed this feeling as “the joy of belonging to a fulfillment beyond men’s lousy, pitiful, greedy fears and hopes and dreams” (2132). He sees these experiences as something which transcends reality, “like the veil of things as they seem drawn back by an unseen hand” (2132). During his experiences of intense joy, Edmund feels a sense of belonging, of “rightness” in the universe, and of unity with all things. But once the feeling of joy has passed, he realizes that he is “a stranger who never feels at home, who does not really want and is not really wanted, who can never belong, who must always be a little in love with death” (2132). His experiences of intense joy cause him to react with hopelessness and despair as he comes to realize that though one can stumble toward whatever it is that those experiences bring, the pursuit will ultimately be unsuccessful.

Both of Edmund’s experiences occurred apart from men and exceeded the hopes, dreams and fears of men. They were “otherly” experiences in which Edmund became one with the world around him. During the time when the “veil…[was] drawn back by an unseen hand,” he felt closer to an actualization of his longings. However, the experiences did not last. They were only momentary, a glimpse of the “secret.” Edmund says, “For a second there was meaning! Then the hand lets the veil fall and you are alone, lost in the fog again, and you stumble on toward nowhere, for no good reason!” (2132). Thus, according to O’Neill, these experiences serve no purpose other than to illustrate to man the ultimate hopelessness of his existence. The secret is never answered but simply serves as a way to taunt man, creating dissatisfaction and despair.

Sehnsucht in the Christian ideal, however, propounds that this sense of longing can ultimately be fulfilled in God. C. S. Lewis provides a prime example of the Christian conclusion of Sehnsucht. In his autobiography Surprised by Joy, Lewis explores his own conversion experience. One of the main things behind his conversion was the idea of Sehnsucht, or “Sweet Desire.” Lewis felt the pull of the supernatural, the longing for a world other than his own. According to David Downing, “Trying to answer that question became a kind of personal grail quest for [Lewis], one that would lead to many false objects of desire—eroticism, the occult, worldly success—until he finally found what he considered to be the true object of Joy, or “Sweet Desire” (Planets in Peril 24). In other words, Lewis experienced the perversion of desire in his own life. Rather than looking to God, the true author and fulfiller of desire, Lewis attempted to fulfill his longing through temporal pleasures.

Lewis’s desires could not be satisfied apart from God. He remained obsessed with the idea of Sehnsucht, and he was restless to find the source of true pleasure. In his quest, God did indeed lay hold of his heart. In his book The Longing for a Form, Peter Schakel writes, “Evidently Joy was not to be found in any particular kind of experience, object, or imaginative construct. It was to be found, paradoxically, in something inseparably bound to the qualities of things, yet distinctly itself” (4). In other words, Lewis gradually came to the realization that true desire stems from a profound longing for the transcendent and can only be truly satisfied through the person of Jesus Christ. Downing states, “Once he became a believer again, his intense interest in Sehnsucht receded. He came to feel it was not really Joy he had been seeking but rather ‘the naked other, imageless, unknown, undefined, desire’” (32).

There is a huge contrast between the views of O’Neill and Lewis. While one sees Sehnsucht as being ultimately hopeless, the other sees it as the pull of God on the hearts of men. The character of Edmund provides an example of the wrong response to Sehnsucht. Rather than looking to upward to God to fulfill his longings, Edmund rather turns to alcoholism, attempting to drown his hopelessness in something that ultimately turns out to be destructive. The true satiation of desire and ultimate fulfillment of joy can only be found in God himself. For, in the words of Augustine, “Thou has made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee” (Confessions 3).

Works Cited
Augustine, Saint. Confessions. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006.

Carnell, Corbin Scott. Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect. Grand
Rapids, William b. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974.

Downing, David. Planets in Peril. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Lewis, Clive Staples. Surprised by Joy. Orlando: Harcourt Inc., 1955.

O’Neill, Eugene. “Long Day’s Journey into Night.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. Norton & Company, 2008. 2068-2143.

Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. London: Oxford University Press, 1936.

Schakel, Peter. The Longing for a Form. United States: Kent State University Press, 1977.

Baccalaureate Colloquium Paper

2008-04-28T18:30:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have already read this paper, forgive the double posting. I had some requests to post it here from people who were not able to attend the Colloquium but wished to read my paper. This version is about 400 words longer than the original...if you'd like to read it again. :o)

Identity vs. Autonomy in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra

Since the Fall of Man, humanity has been on a quest to find itself. The theme of self and identity permeates our culture, and man continually searches for ways to reach a true actualization of self. While attending a secular college, my professors frequently referred to the motif of the pursuit of self and identity within literature, and yet the view presented by C. S. Lewis in Perelandra is not one that matches up with the popularized view of self in today’s culture. Indeed, his view is the Biblical one. Throughout Perelandra, Lewis argues that self can only be actualized through a relationship with God.
When Maleldil created the Green Lady, he made her as a complete entity, perfect in her identity and in her relationship with the King and with Maleldil. Her identity is complete, and her interaction with Maleldil is perfect. Although she is a perfect being, Maleldil also created her with the ability to “become older,” or to gain knowledge through experience. And yet throughout the work, these various experiences are guided and interpreted by Maleldil Himself. The Green Lady lives in absolute, constant communion with Maleldil and has a perfect relationship with Him, just as God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden prior to the Fall. The Green Lady understands what it means to delight in Maleldil her Creator, stating, “I am His beast, and all His biddings are joy” (65). It has never occurred to her to doubt the goodness of Maleldil as He has provided her with everything she could possibly want or need. She is fully dependent upon Him and accepts everything that comes from His hand as good.
In creating the Lady with the ability to “grow older,” however, Maleldil had allowed the possibility for the Lady to choose something over Himself. Ransom comes to a startling realization as he speaks with the Lady:
It was suddenly borne upon him that her purity and peace were not, as they had seemed, things settled and inevitable like the purity and peace of an animal—that they were alive and therefore breakable, a balance maintained by mind and therefore, at least in theory, able to be lost. (59)
Lewis is here restating an argument he made in The Screwtape Letters that God has taken a risk by creating human beings as free servants, desiring for people to learn how to walk on their own rather than allowing them to be carried (7). The Green Lady comes to this realization shortly after Ransom’s arrival on the planet. She begins to understand that she walks in the will of Him she loves rather than being carried in it, and the realization of her freedom strikes her with both delight and terror as she begins to understand that although she lives in perfect harmony with Maleldil, yet she is also separate from Him (60). According to Tanner, “Ransom thus sets the Lady’s foot on a path of self-reflectiveness. It is a path that can lead to much mischief—such as narcissism, hypocrisy, and pride. Yet it is also an enabling condition of freedom” (Psychology of Temptation). In other words, the Lady is now conscious of her ability to choose and of the awful freedom she has to take her hands out of the guiding hands of Maleldil.
Conflict arrives in the character of Weston who represents what ultimately happens to a self who sets himself up to be fully autonomous from God. After Weston arrives on Perelandra, he and Ransom have a discussion about God and the universe. Weston here describes what he has come to learn about a Force that has moved him and changed his thoughts, labeling that Force “God” and stating that he has been commissioned with the purpose of spreading true spirituality throughout the universe. He states, “I worked first for myself; then for science; then for humanity; but now at last for Spirit itself” (78). In this discussion of the Force, however, he also states that it is not a personal being but something which merely causes him to move down a certain path. Weston expresses the goal of moving according to this Force is as follows:
Why, spirit—mind—freedom—spontaneity—that’s what I’m talking about. That is the goal toward which the whole cosmic process is moving. The final disengagement of that freedom, that spirituality, is the work to which I dedicate my own life and the life of humanity. The goal: think of it! Pure spirit: the final vortex of self-thinking, self-originating activity. (79)
The Force is impersonal, leading Weston farther and farther towards absolute autonomy from God. He explains that one must surrender to the Force, making oneself “the conductor of the live, fiery, central purpose—becoming the very finger with which it reaches forward” (81). He has yielded himself to this Force a little bit at a time, becoming more and more consumed by it and increasingly willing to carry out whatever it is the Force calls him to do. In the end, Weston, not understanding what this Force truly is, calls it fully into himself (82). According to David Downing, “Weston illustrates the final destiny of those who succumb to evil. When Weston tries to ally himself to spiritual forces he does not really understand, he loses his selfhood: the man becomes the Un-man” (Planets in Peril 92). In his desire to become a fully autonomous self, Weston ultimately becomes consumed with evil.
What the Un-man then offers to the Lady is autonomy—absolute independence and a life lived apart from Maleldil. The Un-man perverts the truths the Lady has learned, seeking to ruin Paradise by causing disobedience and arousing within the Lady a sense of self-sufficiency. According to Jennifer Strange, “The Un-man claims to offer the lady a more highly evolved form of existence by tempting her to autonomy, but he is actually seeking to undo her identity as a being.” Rather than offering her a more fulfilled relationship with Maleldil, in actuality the Un-man is seeking to sever that relationship altogether. He is tempting the Lady to take her hands out of Maleldil’s and walk on her own. He attempts to turn the heart of the Lady fully inward upon herself to find her identity rather than to continue to look upward to Maleldil, her Creator and the only one who makes her complete.
The main point at which the Un-man attacks the Lady is to cause her to doubt Maleldil’s command not to remain on the Fixed Land. The Un-man first tempts the Lady to break Maleldil’s command by telling her, “[Maleldil] has not forbidden you to think about dwelling on the Fixed Land” (89). He perverts what the Lady has learned about walking as a separate being, telling her that it is acceptable to think about things that will never happen, conveying to her the falsehood that Maleldil wishes her to know both what is and what might be (89). In her essay, “A Preface to Perelandra,” Margaret Hannay makes the following statement:
The Lady had no possessions and no control over he own life whatever; her island floated with her across the seas according to Maleldil’s will, not her own. The Green Lady is therefore tempted to stay on the Fixed Land so she can keep things and know where to find them, so that she will not have to be separated from the King, so that she can depend on her own will rather than the will of Maleldil. (86)
By causing the Lady to succumb to the temptation of living on the Fixed Land, the Un-man would successfully sever the bond between the Lady and Maleldil, thus corrupting another world with sin. Living on the Fixed Land would place the Lady in a state of autonomy in that she would no longer have to rely on Maleldil as her provider but would rather be trusting in herself.
The Un-man goes on to tell the Lady that Maleldil is “letting go of [her] hand a little,” stating, “He is making you a full woman, for up till now you were only half made—like the beasts who do nothing of themselves” (90). The Un-man continues in this temptation by attempting to arouse within the Lady a desire to become older than the King, stating “When you meet the King again, it is you who will have things to tell him. It is you who will be older than he and who will make him older” (90). Again, this hinges on the concept of autonomy, that the Lady can become older and experience joy and pleasures totally separate from Maleldil and the King.
The Un-man launches a full-scale attack on the Lady’s concept of obedience, attempting to convince her that Maleldil secretly desires her to do that very thing which He has forbidden. He informs her of these things “to make [her] wise, older” (97). He says to the Lady, “You are becoming your own. That is what Maleldil wants you to do…His way of making you older is to make you make yourself older” (99). He then asks the Lady if she is absolutely certain that Maleldil wishes to be obeyed, telling her that “a real disobeying, a real branching out, this is what He secretly longs for: secretly, because to tell you would spoil it all” (100). Throughout all of these temptations, the permeating theme continues to be that of autonomy—stepping outside of the will of Maleldil in order to fully become one’s own. According to Strange:
Autonomy in actuality brings about the death of self in that perfect identity is content to be the creature serving the Creator. False, autonomous self seeks to become equal with the Creator, making itself the centre and manipulating the world around it.
The struggle for true identity is also seen in the character of Ransom. Although he has been sent to Perelandra as a mediator of sorts, Ransom is a fallen human being who is caught up in the epic struggle of flesh against spirit. According to Downing, “Ransom’s two-toned body is an image of his divided self. Though he has submitted to the will of Maleldil (God), he still has within him his natural self, his own desire for control, safety, and self-reliance” (37). The struggle between Ransom’s natural self and submitted will is first seen after his initial conversation with the Lady. After she left, he came to the realization that Maleldil was still present, and His presence at times made Ransom uncomfortable. He gradually came to the understanding that he felt uncomfortable “only at certain moments—at just those moments in fact…when a man asserts his independence and feels that now at last he’s on his own,” and in those moments, “the very air seemed too crowded to breathe” (62). Downing continues:
Ransom discovers this sense of Presence is…seeming to squeeze out his very selfhood. When he tries to assert his own will, it seems almost suffocating. But when he gives himself up, it seems a glorious fullness, which makes earthly life, by comparison, seem barren and empty (40).
Ransom here is presented with the paradox of dying to self in order to live to God. He desires to be fully yielded to Maleldil, and yet he also desires to be fully himself and able to function apart from Maleldil. Ransom lives as a part of “the conflict between one’s sanctified self and one’s natural self, between the spirit of Christ within and the spirit of the ‘old Adam’ that resists the intrusion” (Downing 38). Although Ransom at first resisted fully surrendering himself to Maleldil, he came to a startling realization:
When you gave in to the thing, gave yourself up to it, there was no burden to be borne. It became not a load, but a medium, a sort of splendour as of eatable, drinkable, breathable gold, which fed and carried you and not only poured into you but out from you as well (62).
Ransom gradually learned how to surrender himself fully and allow Maleldil to govern every aspect of his being and thought. And as he learned to make this “inner gesture…his day became better and better as the hours passed” (63). In the end, Ransom chooses to fully surrender his will to Maleldil, fighting the Un-man despite the possibility that he may meet his own demise through his actions. And yet the fact remains that although Ransom has indeed chosen to surrender his will to Maleldil in certain specific instances, he is still a flawed being and not perfect in his relationship with Maleldil. For each battle he wins against the desire for autonomy, another remains to be fought because he is ultimately not a perfect being or identity.
Ransom’s flawed relationship with Maleldil is strongly evidenced in several situations. As he listens to and participates in the dialogue between the Un-man and the Lady, Ransom finds himself beginning to doubt Maleldil. He feels that Maleldil has been unfair in sending him to Perelandra to fight “with every weapon taken from him,” and “a sudden impulse of hot rebellion arose within him” followed by a wave of doubt (104). Ransom also found himself questioning the Divine Justice of Maleldil. Rather than placing unswerving faith in the power of Maldlil, “he could not understand why Maleldil should remain absent when the enemy was there in person” (119). Unlike the Green Lady, Ransom does not experience constant awareness of Maleldil’s presence. Rather, each time the presence is felt, it requires the overcoming of a certain resistance for the presence to even be welcome. The sense of Maleldil’s presence can only be experienced when the desire for independence is conquered. At one point, Ransom “became aware in some indefinable fashion that [the presence] had never been absent, that only some unconscious activity of his own had succeeded in ignoring it for” (119-120). The very fact that he had unconsciously ignored Maleldil’s presence illustrates the deeply embedded nature of sin’s rebellion against God. One does not need to struggle to be apart from God, but rather to be close to him.
Even while feeling the presence of Maleldil, Ransom’s “voluble self” continues to raise numerous objections to Maleldil. This struggle of the “voluble self” against Maleldil is clearly seen the night before Ransom’s confrontation with the Un-man as he comes to a realization that obedience to Maleldil requires him to kill the Un-man. Lewis states, “As one part of Ransom remained, as it were, prostrated in a hush of fear and love that resembled a kind of death, something else inside him, wholly unaffected by reverence, continued to pour queries and objections into his brain” (120). While his spirit desired to be in subjection to Maleldil, yet his flesh continued to war against Maleldil’s command. In the end, Ransom chooses to die to his flesh and follow Maleldil in order to truly live.
Tinidril (or the Green Lady), however, chooses not to yield to the temptation of the Un-man and thus remains a perfect being. After the Un-man has left, she realizes that the only reason to desire living on the Fixed Land was “to be able to on one day to command where [she] would be the next and what should happen to [her]” (179). To disobey the command “was to reject the wave—to draw [her] hands out of Maleldil’s, to say to Him, ‘Not thus, but thus’” (179). In the end, Tor (the King) and Tinidril both live in perfect harmony with Maleldil, content to obey Him and delight in His presence and all that He has given. They have obtained a sort of fixed freedom in that they have made the ultimate choice to follow Maleldil above all else, to be His true image-bearers, and to rule over Perelandra while remaining in perfect harmony and fellowship with Him. Tor says to Ransom, “Maleldil has taken us where He meant us to be” (178). Tor and Tinidril shall now walk forever with their hands in those of Maleldil, embracing whatever wave He brings their way.
The Great Dance at the end of the work also emphasizes that true identity is found in Maleldil. The Dance itself focuses on Maleldil, extolling him as the centre of all things. Each individual praises Maleldil with his own voice, yet the voices all mingle together in the common purpose of exalting Maleldil. During the Great Dance,
[Ransom] never knew which words were his or another’s, or even whether a man or an eldil was talking. The speeches followed one another…like the parts of a music into which all five of them had entered as instruments or like a wind blowing through five trees that stand together on a hilltop. (183)
Both the identity and the group are maintained. Each individual and the group as a whole praise the love of Maleldil, recognizing that without Maleldil they are nothing (186). Rather than their identities being consumed, each identity individually acknowledges dependence upon Maleldil, and thus the identities are able to join in mutual praise.
C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra puts forth an important lesson pertaining to the concept of true self and identity, making a clear distinction between walking in total fellowship and surrender with God and walking in one’s own strength and according to one’s own will. Lewis puts forth the concept that the true actualization of self can only be found in God alone, and that all other attempts to “grow older” apart from Him will end in nothing more than failure and misery. In the end, “He is the centre…[and] there is no way out of the centre save into the Bent Will which casts itself into the Nowhere. Blessed be He!” (185).

Works Cited
Downing, David C. Planets in Peril. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.
---. “Perelandra: A Tale of Paradise Retained.” C. S. Lewis: Life, Works, and Legacy Volume 2. Ed. Bruce L. Edwards. Westport: Praeger, 2007. 35-51.
Hannay, Margaret P. “A Preface to Perelandra.” The Longing for a Form. Ed. Peter Schakel. United States: Kent University Press, 1977.
Lewis, Clive Staples. Perelandra. New York: Scribner Classics, 1972.
Strange, Jennifer. “Will the Green Lady Become A Self? The Dangers of Self-Consciousness In C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra.” C. S. Lewis. The Man and His Work: A 21st Century Legacy, Wake Forest. 27 October 2007.
Tanner, John S. “The Psychology of Temptation in Perelandra and Paradise Lost: What Lewis Learned From Milton.” Renascense. Winter 2000: 131+.

Why Ideas Are Important for Christians

2008-04-20T10:31:00.000-07:00

I heard an interesting question the other day: "Why should we read anything other than the Bible? Don't we have everything we need within Scripture? What, if anything at all, do we gain from reading other things?"

To be fair, it is a good question. Why should we read anything other than the Bible when Scripture is our ultimate authority and provides us with the only understanding of truth? Please bear with me as I attempt to make a case for why an understanding of ideas and culture are both important.

Some of you will already be defensive at this point. You are tired of hearing about the whole "cultural relevancy" thing and expect this to be yet another attempt to berate those who don't engage with culture. That is not the case I am trying to make. I merely wish to illustrate to you why ideas, and an understanding of those ideas that have shaped our culture, are important.

Allow me to start with Scripture. Through God's Word, we learn that we are sinners (Rom. 1), that we are powerless to return to God in and of ourselves (Rom. 5:6), and that true salvation comes only through Christ (Acts 4:12). We also learn about things such sanctification, or becoming conformed to the image of Christ. God's Word does indeed provide us with everything we need. Those who have placed faith in Christ should have a proper understanding of Scripture, and their worldview should be formed and shaped by Scripture. God's Word becomes the filter through which we sift everything, and it allows us to discern truth from error.

So why are ideas important? Why read things such as Plato, Aristotle, Freud, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Jonathan Swift, Christopher Hitchens, or Philip Pullman? Don't these ideas and concepts lead people away from Scripture rather than toward it? Will works like these cause believers to doubt their salvation or turn away from the truth?

Though I realize this example runs the extreme risk of being run into the ground, allow me to provide an illustration from Acts 17. In this chapter, the Apostle Paul is in Athens. As he is there, he becomes troubled by all of the idols present within the city, noticing even one altar dedicated to "the unknown God." While reasoning with the Athenians in the Areopagus, Paul says: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children' " (Acts 17:24-28 NASB, emphasis added).

Did you catch it? Paul points out that although people may not know the one true God, they will grope for Him to find Him. Then what does Paul do? He quotes one of their poets who had been groping after God! Reading these great works that have impacted Western Civilization gives us a greater understanding of how man has groped for God. You see Plato discussing the Forms, Aeschylus addressing the concept of justice, Confucius writing about the Tao. These concepts then become resources we can add to our warehouse and utilize in sharing the Gospel.

How are you doing on being able to take concepts and filter them through Scripture? Are you actively engaged in using your mind for God's glory? Are you engaging ideas or are you afraid of them? Ideas are everywhere. Let's learn how to actively use our minds in order to point others to the real truth.

Intellectualism in Christianity

2008-04-09T14:20:00.001-07:00

My dear readers,
I am not sure how many of you there actually are, especially since my blogs of late have been sporadic at best and hardly worth reading at worst. However, for those of you who are faithful readers, I think it only fair to let you all know that I am revamping my blog.

For those of you who don't know, God is calling me into the world of academia, to use my mind for His glory in a missional way. Thus, I will now be using this blog to encourage and challenge my fellow believers to think rightly, to think hard, to think theologically, and to think with a proper perspective. I cannot promise how regularly I will be able to post, but I will try to post a new blog on a new topic at least every other week.

In beginning this new focus for my blog, I think it would be helpful to provide you with an illustration recently given by my theology professor. Dr. John Lennox was recently on the Southeastern campus and gave a series of lectures. Following Lennox's lectures, Dr. Schemm gave us the following illustration:

The second example illustrates a person who has a small store or stock of knowledge that he is overly eager to share with anyone and everyone he comes in contact with. He takes great pride in his intellectual prowess and loves to show off his intellect on every possible occasion. He shows great pride in that his showroom is larger than his actual warehouse of knowledge. Rather than admitting the areas in which he is ignorant, he rather attempts to prove that his knowledge is greater than that which he actually possesses.

The individual in the first example has added much knowledge to his warehouse. He has studied, labored, persevered. But there is still an evident imbalance. The showroom is now the same size as the warehouse. Yet a showroom containing all the material from the warehouse is cluttered and stifling. There needs to be a balance.

The third example illustrates an individual who possesses intellectual humility. He represents heroes of Christian Intellectualism such as C. S. Lewis and John Lennox. This man has accumulated great knowledge, has applied himself diligently to study. He has also arrived at a good balance. He places just enough in his showroom to provide a taste of what is in the warehouse, and what he has allowed you to see in the showroom makes you want to see what lies behind it in the warehouse.

My reason for posting this illustration is to ask you as my readers to keep me accountable. As I head into the world of academia, I know that it will be tempting for me to become intellectually puffed up. In beginning this new focus on my blog, I also want to acknowledge my own ignorance on many, many points and ask you to be patient with me as I learn. Please join me in learning and using our minds for the glory of God!

shedding

2008-04-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

I am shedding. Shedding the
Old thoughts, the old dreams,
The old fears, the old actions. I
Am dying. Dying to self, to lying
Love, to vain hopes, to false reality.

Something new develops beneath
The old. It separates the old from
The new, forcing the beginning of
A torturingly beautiful transformation.
I approach the Rock, scraping against
Its hard, unyielding surface.

The old self is sloughing off,
Peeling away layer by layer, scale
By scale. Self is wearing down.
It has been battered by time,
Torn by injury. But now the
Shedding has begun.

Slowly, painfully the dead self
Folds back. I writhe in the old
Skin, longing to be free from it,
To replace it. But self will not
Go without a struggle.

The old self cannot stay. The
New self underneath demands
Change. I cannot, must not, will
Not give up. With one last effort
I am free of the old skin. I leave
It lying there on the grass.

exposed

2008-03-09T17:31:00.000-07:00

I live with the worst of myself every day. There lies a darkness beneath the surface that is longing to break loose, to rise to power and dominate my mind, control my actions. A plethora of unwanted thoughts pass through my head each day, flickering images on the screen of my mind that leer at me with ghastly smiles. A host of unbidden words spew forth from my mouth, wreaking havoc and adding to my shame. There is evil within my soul that threatens to control every aspect of who I am.
Yet what of the Light? In the midst of my darkness, why do I hide from Him? Even the furthest corner of the sea is not hidden from His view. He saw me as I was in my mother's womb. He has searched and known me; He sees each action, hears each word, perceives each thought before it ever takes place. He has ordained each of my days, even numbered the hairs on my head.
Then why do I run from Him? Why must I hold onto my heart so fiercely and refuse to let Him have it? He approaches me and I hiss and snarl like a wounded animal. I bite at the Hand reaching out to remove the trap; my thrashing only causes the trap to cut deeper, wounding me more.
The more I try to become myself, the more lost I become. When will I learn that only in dying can I live, only in loss will I gain, only in weakness be made strong?

masks and shells

2008-03-08T14:37:00.000-08:00

What happened?

I really don't know. I am confused
And I don't know how to respond to you
Because it seems like everything I say is wrong
And it won't make any difference anyway.

So I wear a mask, do I? But don't
We all? We have been hurt and angered
And we try to cover up the pain with opiates
That deaden us and allow us to stop feeling.

Believe it or not, hurt screams in my
Own soul, but I am afraid that showing
It will only cause occasion for further anguish,
Making my heart a wide open target waiting to be shot.

So the turtle crawls back into its shell, its
Softness disguised by the hardness of the
Exterior that protects it. It cries within its shell,
Its tears not visible to the one kicking the outside.

Angry words devour like wolves, howling
At the moon and gorging themselves on the
Prey they have tracked down and killed, their
Glistening teeth stained with blood.

Healing

2008-02-27T20:19:00.000-08:00

Standing in a wide open
Field under the starry
Sky, I lift my face
To heaven and scream.

Hatred and bitterness
Cloud my heart, and
Sharp, terrible pain
Envelops me as You
Begin to penetrate the
Fog with Your Light.

I writhe beneath Your gaze.
My heart lies pulsating
And quivering within Your
Hands. I reach out my hands;
Tears stream down my cheeks
As I ask You to give it back
To me, to leave it alone, to
Make the pain go away.

You gaze at me tenderly,
Yet continue to hold my
Throbbing heart gently, ever
So carefully and lovingly.

"Why are You doing this
To me?!" I beat my fists
Upon the ground in rage
And anger, the hole in
My chest aching with
Pain and emptiness.

I sense You approaching,
Yet I am too engrossed in
My anger to acknowledge
Your presence. You are kneeling
Beside me now. I can hear
My heart beating in Your
Hands. I look up at You accusingly
Through tear-filled eyes.

Your eyes also glisten with
Tears. They fall quietly upon
The heart that you are
Holding in Your Hands.

I feel them falling. I gasp,
Expecting pain. But instead
I feel comfort, as though
Your grief heals my sorrow. My
Eyes remain fixed upon Your
Glistening gaze in wonder.

The throbbing of my heart
Begins to still. As your
Tears continue, the hole in
My chest ceases to ache. I
Can see the wounds closing.
My hatred and anger dissolve
As I gaze into eyes of love, and
I know that my heart is safe with You.

Reflections

2008-02-15T06:55:00.001-08:00

I look around at the world and my heart cannot help but grieve.
People are lost, hurting, weary, and hopeless.
They are walking in utter darkness.
Shootings, rape, abuse, chaos, destruction.

I look around at our churches and I am ashamed.
People are comfortably sitting in plush pews, singing, hearing, then going home and doing nothing.
The cross stands upon the stage but its meaning is forgotten.
Harsh words, bickering, backstabbing, complacency.

I look at my own life and hide my face.
People walk by me every day and I say nothing, choosing to watch them walk into hell.
Jesus looks at my silence and weeps.
Fear, intimidation, lack of love, silence.

I look upon the cross and weep.
How can I act with such little love toward the one who loved me to the point of death?

We aren't the only ones who send missionaries, folks!

2008-02-08T11:09:00.000-08:00

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCERhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341882_needle01.html

Under The Needle: Bringing Buddhism to a wired Seattle

Lama uses English -- and a Blackberry

By MIKE LEWISP-I REPORTER
Sure, it's possible to point out tenets in Buddhism and physics which hold that time is relational, relative and impermanent, but it hardly ranks as an acceptable excuse when a guy is running late.
Or when a humming BlackBerry won't permit the calming of the mind.
Such is the nature of the path traveled by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, a lama, a teacher and an India-to-Fremont transplant who is formally adapting Tibetan Buddhism to American culture -- more specifically, a wired, caffeinated Seattle that sometimes wishes Enlightenment would jack up the bandwidth or maybe just text:
UR@1ness. Tea L8R?
"There is a lack of patience in 21st-century culture," Rinpoche said, sitting in his office in Nalanda West, a Buddhist center a stone's throw from the Aurora Bridge. "We get stimulated, encouraged to do everything faster. It can be difficult."
As Rinpoche says this, a smile is tugging at the corner of his mouth, impishness pooling just below the surface for one of the nation's highest-ranking Tibetan Buddhist scholars.
Thin and younger-looking than his 42 years, tech savvy and gently ironic, Rinpoche (rhymes with "ricochet") delights in his quest to blend the ancient and Asian with a hurried, varied, scattered nation.
Buddhism needs a distinctly American sect, he says of the work he is doing here in Seattle. And America, open-minded and ever-adaptable, is perfect for Buddhism.
"Buddhism is a pure water of wisdom and compassion," he said. "It has no form or shape. It takes the form of what you pour it into."
And that American form is what? Supersized?
Rinpoche laughs. No, he said, not necessarily.
It's his quest to figure out what is American culture and how to teach Buddhism to it. Rinpoche (and other Buddhist scholars in the U.S.) have been adapting traditions nearly 3,000 years old to a culture with far different expectations than what he had as a child in Sikkin, India.
He entered the monastery at age 5 and soon was recognized as a future lama. Buddhism was woven into everything he learned. That is a much different experience than for a Belltown genetic scientist who walks into the center as an adult.
Teachings in the Rumtek Monastery, vital for Rinpoche's childhood development, wouldn't make as much sense to an American. Within the Nalanda West center, chants are in English (heresy to some purists) and bowing is optional. Rituals are explained early, literally, rather than learned through years of practice. Breathing and meditation are an immediate focus in America. The process of calming the mind isn't as vital in Asia.
Social problems differ, too. For example, a lama here must be able to talk about depression. "I had not seen that as a big issue before coming to America," he said.
And a spiritual leader here must understand the effects of an aggressive culture. Lectures and lessons are placed on CDs and bundled for MP3 players.
"The technology is something we have to embrace," he said. "It allows us to reach people. We put as much information online as we can."
As Rinpoche said this, his Blackberry buzzed. He glanced, resisted picking it up and resumed. He's been teaching in Seattle six years now, after some time in Boulder, Colo. He first traveled to America at 14 with his instructor. He marveled at New York but came away feeling there wasn't much difference in the human condition between the two countries.
"We all suffer," he said.
But when he returned to the states in 1991, he began to pick up the distinctions. The American axiom, or assumption, is different, more individual, more optimistic, less contemplative. He and friends decided that these adaptable Americans needed a Buddhism adapted to them.
It remains, he said, a work in progress. Sure, there are critics who say chanting in English is less holy than in Tibetan. But to them, Rinpoche asks: As the original texts are in Sanskrit, why is the Tibetan language any more holy than English?
You see, he said, it's always been an adaptable religion, ready to take the form of its host. Now, if he could just get the hosts to slow down for a sec.
UNDER THE NEEDLE

So, what are we going to do about it? God forbid that American Christians become so lazy that people in our nation begin turning to other religions looking for what we are too afraid to offer them!

Doctrinal Summaries

2007-12-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

Prolegomena

Prolegomena answers this important question: Who needs theology? Plainly stated, everyone needs theology. It is necessary for all believers. Without a solid theological foundation, humans can easily slip into grievous errors regarding their view of God and his ways. Indeed, theology serves as a vital discipline for all believers.
Essentially, the purpose of theology is to know God. It is vital in theology, however, that we indeed develop a correct view of God. The Fall of man occurred because he was tempted with the offer for knowledge that would make him like God (Gen. 2:16-17). Satan was able to tempt the woman by twisting God’s words, restructuring the woman’s thought or knowledge of God. Thus, it is crucial that we as Christians have a right understand of God through his words. Without a proper understanding of God, we have no foundation upon which to build.
Believers must study theology based upon the necessity of divine revelation. Rather than just speaking verbal words to his people, God has chosen to reveal himself to humankind through a written, inspired book, the Bible. In his Word, God has given precise instructions as to how we are to think about God. Without knowledge of God’s divine revelation, we cannot be aware of the way in which God has commanded us to think about him.
All believers require theology as a means of developing a personal relationship with God. The Holy Spirit works in our hearts through the work of Jesus Christ. Whether or not they recognize it, everyone espouses some form of theology. Indeed, without theology one can neither know God nor experience growth in Christ.
Theology is also necessary for the church as a whole. Scripture teaches that it is necessary to contend for the faith (Jude 3). Theology is necessary in order to provide unity in the faith and knowledge of God (Eph. 4:11). If a body of believers cannot agree upon the fundamental doctrines of the faith, they will be unable to worship God together in truth and unity.
Another important aspect of theology is that it teaches us the correct way to worship God. In Exodus 20, for example, God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments in order that they might have a true knowledge of God and thus know how to worship him. Jesus also stressed the necessity of worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth, showing the crucial importance of worshiping God rightly (Jn. 4:23-24).
Theology is also necessary as a way to make a defense of the Christian faith. Scripture tells us that we are always to be ready with an answer for the hope that lies within us (1 Peter 3:14-16). It is important to glorify God with the mind in the study of theology, actively engaging the things of God.
Theology is also important in the area of evangelism. Without a proper understanding of the Gospel, believers cannot share the Gospel properly. It is through the Gospel that we are saved, and without a proper understanding of the message of that Gospel, our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:1-8).

Special Revelation

Special Revelation consists of the direct revelation of God in such a way that allows human beings to enter into a personal relationship with him. Special revelation is only through the sacred Scripture. God chose to reveal his words to particular people in certain places at particular times. God also chose to disclose himself to humanity in a personal way. Revelation takes place through both deeds and words. Special revelation also follows a progressive pattern, building off of what has been previously revealed.
There are four main aspects of special revelation: authority, clarity, necessity, and sufficiency. Essentially, authority equates God’s words with God. God’s word is what God said. Furthermore, all the words in Scripture are the words of God, and Scripture itself indeed claims to be the direct words of God (2 Tim. 3:14-15). Because the Scriptures are the direct words of God, thus to disobey Scripture is to disobey God himself. It is important to hold to the teaching of authority because God’s word teaches us the truth about God and becomes our final authority.
The second important characteristic of Scripture is clarity. In and of himself, man cannot accept the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Human beings misunderstand Scripture because we are fallen and tainted. Although Scripture is absolutely clear, the things in God’s Word must be spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2:14). The concepts are not simplistic.
Thirdly is necessity. Scripture is indeed necessary for any true knowledge of God. Without Scripture, man cannot be apprised of his fallen state before God and his need for a Savior. Another aspect of necessity is that Scripture is vital for the spiritual growth of the believer. Without the “pure milk of the word,” we cannot grow in our salvation (1 Peter 2:2).
The fourth aspect of Scripture is sufficiency. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 outlines the absolute sufficiency of Scripture stating that it is profitable for reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. It is through Scripture that the believer becomes equipped. Scripture is sufficient to answer all of our questions. Indeed, God has given us all we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

The Nature of God

When discussing the nature of God, there are several important things to take into consideration. One of the main things to understand about God is that he is Spirit (Jn. 4:24). As such, God is also immaterial and incorporeal (Deut. 4:15; Acts 17:29). Because he is spirit, God is invisible (Jn. 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16). Although God is invisible, Scripture does record that God can manifest himself (Gen. 32:30; Ex. 33:23). Although God is spirit, he is also living (Ps. 84:2). Because Scripture speaks of God as being living, one can conclude that he is not inanimate but rather powerful and active. God is also a Person. Scripture refers to him as “I AM” (Ex. 3:14). Scripture also ascribes aspects of personhood to God, such as knowing (1 Cor. 2:11), and doing (Eph. 1:9).
Although God possesses attributes man can relate to, yet he is entirely other. God exists independent of his creation. He did not need to create man, but rather chose to create humankind in order to bring glory to himself (Acts 17:24-25; Job 41:11; Ps. 50:10-12). God’s purposes, promises, and his perfection never changes (Mal. 3:6). God is also eternal. He has no beginning (Ps. 90:2) and no end (Rev. 1:8). God is also omnipresent, not being contrained by the limits of time and space (Ps. 139:7-10; 1 Kings 8:27). God is also a perfectly unified being. Although he possesses various attributes, he is not divided into parts (Deut. 6:4).
God also possesses moral attributes. God contains goodness and is indeed himself the final standard of goodness (Ps. 34:8). God is also love in that he freely and eternally gives of himself (1 Jn. 4:8-10). God demonstrates grace and mercy in that he exercises his goodness toward those who do not deserve it (Heb. 4:16). Holiness is the attribute of God that sets him wholly apart from sin (Ps. 24:3; 99:9). God is a God of peace in that his actions and nature is separate from any form of chaos and disorder (1 Cor. 14:33). God is also fully righteous in that he acts only according to what is right, and God himself is the final standard of all that is right (Is. 45:19). God is a jealous God in that he constantly protects his own order and preeminence (Is. 48:11). He also experiences wrath in that he violently hates sin (Rom. 1:18).

Man

One of the most important things to understand about man is that we were created by God and God designed man deliberately (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 100:3; Heb. 11:3; Mark 10:6). Man did not evolve but was rather created by God on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:26). Because man was created by God, he is subordinate to God (Gen. 2:15-17). Man is distinct from the animals because he was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). God also created humans to be both male and female, charging them to propagate (Gen. 1:27; Mark 10:6). God created man from the earth and breathed life into him rather than merely speaking him into existence (Gen. 1:31). God also created man with the purpose of subduing and working the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:15).
Although man was originally created as a perfect being (Gen. 2:25), humanity fell to sin and thus corruption entered the world. Indeed, it was through humanity that corruption entered the universe (Gen. 3:1-7; Rom. 5:12). Rather than just affecting Adam and Eve, the fall has corrupted all of humanity from that time forward (Rom. 5:12). In addition to affecting all of humanity, the fall of man has also affected all of creation, causing it to be subjected to sin (Rom. 8:19-22). Sin also separates man from God, hindering the relationship God originally shared with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8). Indeed, we are all dead to God because of our sins and unrighteousness (Col. 2:13-14).
Man can only become right with God through conversion (2 Cor. 5:17). In order to have a right relationship with God, one must be born again (Jn. 3:1-8). Because sin separates man from God, he must be saved from sin (Rom. 5:9,10), and redeemed by God (1 Pet. 1:18). It is only through forgiveness and redemption from sin that man can be reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10). After being justified by his grace (Rom. 5:9), man can then be adopted through Christ into God’s family (Rom. 8:15).
Conversion is only possible through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. God made Christ sin for us in order that we could obtain the righteousness of God through Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). All human beings who accept the work of Christ will receive eternal life (Jn. 3:16, 18). Redeemed men will also receive an incorruptible inheritance in heaven (1 Peter 1:4).

Angels: Divine Messengers

2007-11-26T20:01:00.000-08:00

Human creatures have a fascination with the supernatural. They debate it, philosophize about it, and seek to gain a deeper understanding of its full meaning. Indeed, within Scripture itself we find many evidences of the supernatural—hidden things of God into which we long to look. A fascination with angelic beings is one aspect of the supernatural which humans have sought to understand, and angels have long been a topic of debate and discussion. Scripture clearly lays forth the existence and ministry of angels, and many works, theological and other, exist on the topic. While the study of angels is indeed important, it is imperative that it be kept within its proper context and that our thoughts and understanding of angels should be derived solely from Scripture. This paper will focus on the ministry of angels, addressing their role in the gospel and drawing practical conclusions and applications for believers today.
In order to understand the ministry of angels, it is first necessary to lay the groundwork by addressing what kind of beings angels are. Angels are created beings and thus not eternal. Although there is no specific record of their creation in Scripture as there is of man, Moses declares that “the heavens and earth were completed, and all their hosts” (Gen. 2:1).[1]Likewise, Psalm 148:2-5 states, “He commanded and they were created.” The Apostle Paul expressly states that Christ is the Creator of all things, “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col. 1:16), seeming here to imply that Christ is also the Creator of the angels. It is important to understand that angels are certainly not men who evolved into angels, but that they were created specifically as angels. [2] Because they do not have the ability to proliferate (Matt. 22:30), it appears that angels were created all at the same time, and there is no record of further creation of angels.[3] Although angels are created beings, they “are immaterial being pure spirits.” [4]Though some have appeared in human forms, yet they have an invisible nature.[5] They are lower than God and yet higher than man due to the fact that they are spirit beings (Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7).
Angels were created by God to minister both in heaven and on earth,[6] and their primary function is to serve God. Angels bring God glory, standing in his presence and worshiping him forever. Evidence of this heavenly ministry is seen in Isaiah’s vision in which the Seraphim continually say, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory” (Is. 6:3). This ministry is further seen in Revelation 4:6-11. Likewise, in Ezekiel 1, the prophet sees a vision of angels reflecting the glory and splendor of God, perpetually praising and exalting him.
Angels also ministered to Christ during his earthly ministry. The ministry of angels to Christ is seen in several ways. First is the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary to foretell the birth of Messiah (Lk. 1:26-38). Angels also appeared to the shepherds to announce the divine birth of Christ, proclaiming him to be the Savior and praising God (Lk. 2:8-14). Angelic protection of Christ is seen when an angel appears to Joseph in a dream warning him of the threat of Herod and instructing him to flee to Egypt, and again when Joseph receives instructions to live in the region of Galilee (Matt. 2:13-15, 19-23). Angels also minister directly to Christ during his earthly ministry following his temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4:11; Mar. 1:13), as well as during his temptation in Gethsemane (Lk. 22:43). Following Christ’s resurrection, it is an angel who rolls away the stone and announces to the women at the tomb the glorious news (Matt. 28:2-7; Lk. 24:4-7; Jn. 20:12-13). Lastly, following the ascension of Christ, angels announce to the disciples that he will return again (Acts 1:10-11).
In addition to being before God in the heavenlies, angels also serve the role of ministering spirits on earth. The ministry of angels most commonly explored is that of protection. While this is not the only capacity in which angels serve the purposes of God on earth, angelic protection does indeed appear throughout Scripture. Angels rescue Lot and his family from the corrupt city of Sodom prior to its destruction (Gen. 19). Psalm 91:11-13 states that angels serve in the capacity of guarding God’s people, and Psalm 34:7 states, “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.” When Assyria was about to attack the nation of Israel, the Lord responded to the prayers of King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah by sending an angel to destroy all the mighty men, the officers, and the commanders of Sennacherib’s army (2 Ch. 32:20-21). In the book of Daniel, an angel appears to protect Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, and again to shut the mouths of the lions in order to protect Daniel (Dan. 3:23-27; 6:22). Angelic protection is also evident in the New Testament. When the apostles were imprisoned, God sent an angel to release them and lead them to safety, and again did the same for Peter on a later occasion (Acts 5:19-21; 12:7-11). An angel of the Lord also protects Paul during a storm at sea (Acts 27:23-24).
Angels also serve as agents of God’s judgment. God sends angels to mete out his judgment upon the morally corrupt cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). After David’s act of disobedience in taking a census of Israel, God sends an angel of judgment to punish David and the nation (2 Sam. 24; 1 Ch. 21).In the Psalms, David requests that God repay his foes by causing an angel of the Lord to bring judgment upon his adversaries, making their way “dark and slippery, with an angel of the LORD pursuing them” (Ps. 35:5-6). In Acts 12:23, an angel of the Lord stuck down Herod because he exalted himself and did not give God glory. Jesus also taught that angels would have a role in his judgment upon unbelievers in the last days (Mat. 13:41-49).
Another important role of angels is to serve as God’s messengers, carrying specific communications from God to man. When Joseph was considering the divorce of Mary, an angel appeared to him in a dream and told her not to fear taking her as his wife (Matt. 1:20-24), warned him of the threat of Herod and provided him with instructions where to go (Matt. 2:13), directed him when to return from Egypt (Matt. 2:19), and again warned him not to settle in Judea, giving him directions to live in Galilee (Matt. 2:22). Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the temple, bringing him the message that his wife Elizabeth would conceive and bear a son, informing him of the role his son would play in the coming of Messiah, and rebuking him for his spirit of doubt (Lk. 1:11-20). Gabriel likewise appeared to Mary, bringing to her a message of favor and good news in foretelling the birth of Christ (Lk. 1:26-38). Following the birth of Christ, angels appeared to the shepherds, heralding the birth of Christ and providing instructions for how he may be found (Lk. 2:8-14). An angel also appeared to Cornelius and gave him directions for how he might obtain the good news of salvation (Acts 10:3-8).
Throughout Scripture, angels are seen to play an important role in the gospel. According to John Calvin, “The point to which the Scriptures specially insist is that which tends most to our comfort, and to the confirmation of our faith, namely, that angels are the ministers and dispensers of the divine bounty towards us.”[7] Indeed, when Gabriel appears to Mary, he announces to her the news of the gospel, stating that she has found favor with God and telling her of the future work of the Messiah (Lk. 1:28). According to Calvin, “A conviction of the Divine goodness is the entrance of faith, and the angel properly observes this order, that, after preparing the heart of the virgin by meditation on the grace of God, he may enlarge it to receive the incomprehensible mystery.”[8] In other words, the angel is here preparing Mary’s heart to receive the truth of the gospel which she will come to understand. When the angels appear to the shepherds following Christ’s birth, they proclaim Christ as Savior and declare glory to God and peace to men (Lk. 2:11, 14). Calvin points out that the angel appeared in the “brightness of heavenly glory” in order to prepare the hearts of the shepherds for the message from God and in order that they would understand that their declaration proceeded from God himself, inspiring “the fear…by which God usually humbles the hearts of men…and disposes them to receive his word with reverence.”[9]
An angel also plays an important role in the conversion experience of Cornelius. Although Cornelius feared God, he did not understand the gospel. An angel appeared to him, telling him how to find Simon Peter in order that Cornelius could receive the gospel. Although the angel informed Cornelius of how he could obtain the gospel, the angel did not actually preach the gospel directly to him. According to Calvin, angels do not bring the actual preaching of the gospel,[10] and yet their role in the furtherance of the gospel cannot be denied. In Acts 8:26, an angel of the Lord directed Philip to go to a certain road where he met and was able to share the gospel with the Ethiopian eunuch who was a man of influence and could have a great impact in the spreading of the gospel. In both the instances of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, it was the angel who gave general direction but the Holy Spirit who gave specific instructions to both Peter and Philip.[11]
While the doctrine of angelology is indeed important to the church today, it is necessary that we not place too high an emphasis on angels. Although angels are spiritual beings, they are not to be worshiped as deity, for they are under the Lordship and authority of Christ.[12] Colossians 2:18-19 states that believers are not to be defrauded of our prize through the worship of angels. All things, including angelic beings, are in subjection to Christ (Heb. 2:8).
The doctrine of Angelology has been explored throughout church history, from the early church fathers to the present time. Origen includes a discussion of angels in his First Principles. [13] He states that angels have the ability to reason and are rational, and that they are creatures who possess free will.[14] Origen also puts forth that although angels are incorporeal beings, they are also created beings and subject to the will of Christ.[15] In his work Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas writes on speculative angelology, discussing the possible roles and hierarchies of angels. St. Augustine of Hippo likewise includes a discussion of angels in The City of God. Martin Luther also views angels as important beings who are “appointed for the service of the divine church.”[16] In later church history, Karl Barth includes a discussion of angels in his Church Dogmatics, stressing the fact that angelology must be considered in the context “of God’s lordship over the creature, which has its meaning and centre in its exercise in Jesus Christ,” making the point that angelology must be considered only as it relates to the divine lordship and headship of Christ.[17]
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin also affirms the necessity of viewing angelology purely through the lens of Scripture, stressing the need to place Christ as the central figure over all created rules and authorities, stating that to speculate over the time or order of angels “bespeaks more perverseness than industry” and is nothing more than idle talk.[18] He then goes on to lay out a Biblical foundation for the study of angelology. Angels are heavenly spirits and messengers who clearly bring the will of God to men and play a role in governing the earth.[19] Calvin asserts that the point at which Scripture is most insistent is that angels are ministers of the “divine bounty” toward us, lending to the confirmation of our faith.[20] This role of divine bounty includes their service to and protection of believers. Calvin also includes a warning against allowing superstition to creep into the doctrine of angelology, stating that we must be cautious in our view of angels and not ascribe to them more glory than they are due.[21] According to Calvin, angels are ultimately agents of the Most High God who serve to manifest his power and provide protection for his people.[22]
Is the doctrine of angelology still important to the church today? Erickson proposes three reasons why the study of angels is significant: first, it is a comfort to us to know that we have powerful agents available to help us; second, the praise and service the angels render to God provides believers with an example to do likewise; and lastly, it should sober us to realize that even angels dwelling in the presence of God fell to temptation.[23] Rather than just being mythical beings or creatures from fairy tales, angels do indeed serve a practical purpose in the lives of believers. Although not visible to us in the physical realm, angels are present to provide help and protection to believers (Ps. 34:7).
Angels also provide an example to believers through their perpetual worship of Christ. They dwell in the throne room of God, surrounding him and extolling him ceaselessly (Rev. 4:8). Angels also express great joy over each sinner that comes to repentance (Lk. 15:10). They are content to serve in the capacity for which they were created. In the end, believers will join angels in extolling God in the heavenlies (Rev. 7:9-17).
Lastly, angels provide a sober warning in that they, who dwell in the presence of God, fell to temptation. If the transgressions of angels were punished, how much more so will the transgressions of men (Heb. 2:2-3). Understanding that angels are not exempt from God’s wrath and punishment should inspire believers to daily live in sober awareness before God.
It is indeed valuable for believers to be aware of the existence and ministry of angels. Throughout Scripture, God provides us with examples of the ministry of angels and the service they render to believers. Although angels are an important part of God’s creation, it is important for believers to bear in mind that is indeed all angels are—creatures created by God to perform his will. Rather than glorifying the position of angels above their due, the ministry of angels should cause believers to extol the Creator who works all things according to the power of his might.

[1] All Scripture citations are from the New American Standard Version (NASB).[2] C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 28. [3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 463. [4] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), 477. [5] Ibid. , 477. [6]C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 96.[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1. 14.6. [8] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Vol. 1, Trans. Rev. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, 1999), 33. [9] Ibid. , 114. [10] Ibid. , 25. [11] C. Fred Dickason , Angels: Elect & Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 103.[12] James Leo Garret, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 364. [13] Origen, First Principles, 1.5.1.[14] Ibid. , 1.5.1, 1.5.2.[15] Ibid. , 1.5.3., 1.5.6. [16] Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, trans. By Ewald M. Plass (Saint Louis, 1959), 23. [17] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics ( ), 371. [18] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1. 14.4.[19] Ibid. , 1.14. 5. [20] Ibid. , 1.14.6. [21] Ibid. , 1.14.10. [22] Ibid. , 1.14.11. [23]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 475.

Bibliography
Adler, Mortimer Jerome. The Angels and Us. New York: Macmillan, 1982.

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Summa Theologica, vol. 9. Oxford: Blackfiars, 1968.

Augustine, Saint. The City of God trans. R. W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics vol. 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge. London: James Clarke & Co., 1953.

________. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1, trans. Rev. William Pringle. Grand Rapids, W. B. Erdmans Co., 1956.

Dickason, C. Fred. Angels: Elect & Evil. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, vol. 2, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

Garret, James Leo Jr. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology vol. 2. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003.

Knowles, Victor. Angels and Demons. Joplin: College Press Publishing Company.

Luther, Martin. What Luther Says: An Anthology ed. Ewald M. Plass. Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1959.

Origen. Origen De Principis from Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 4, Ed. Alexander Roberts. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954.

Schemm, Peter R. Jr. “The Agents of God: Angels.” A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.

Trigg, Joseph W. “The Angel of Great counsel: Christ and the Angelic Hierarchy in Origen’s Theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (April 1991).

Identity vs. Autonomy

2007-11-14T15:16:00.000-08:00

Since the Fall of Man, humanity has been on a quest to find itself. The theme of self and identity permeates our culture, and man continually searches for ways to reach a true actualization of self. While attending a secular college, my professors frequently referred to the motif of the pursuit of self and identity within literature, and yet the view presented by C. S. Lewis in Perelandra is not one that matches up with the popularized view of self in today’s culture. Indeed, his view is the Biblical one. Throughout Perelandra, Lewis argues that self can only be truly actualized through a relationship with God.
When Maleldil created the Green Lady, he made her as a complete entity, perfect in her identity and in her relationship with the King and with Maleldil. Her identity is complete, and her interaction with Maleldil is perfect. Although she is a perfect being, Maleldil also created her with the ability to “become older,” or to gain knowledge through experience. And yet throughout the work, these various experiences are guided and interpreted by Maleldil Himself. The Green Lady lives in absolute, constant communion with Maleldil and has a perfect relationship with Him, just as God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden prior to the Fall. The Green Lady understands what it means to delight in Maleldil her Creator, stating, “I am His beast, and all His biddings are joy” (65). It has never occurred to her to doubt the goodness of Maleldil as He has provided her with everything she could possibly want or need. She is fully dependent upon Him and accepts everything that comes from His hand as good.
In creating the Lady with the ability to “grow older,” however, Maleldil has also allowed the possibility for the Lady to choose something over Himself. Ransom comes to a startling realization as he speaks with the Lady:
It was suddenly borne upon him that her purity and peace were not, as they had seemed, things settled and inevitable like the purity and peace of an animal—that they were alive and therefore breakable, a balance maintained by mind and therefore, at least in theory, able to be lost (59).
Lewis is here restating an argument which he made in The Screwtape Letters that God has taken a risk by creating human beings as free servants, desiring for people to learn how to walk on their own rather than allowing them to be carried (7). The Green Lady comes to this realization shortly after Ransom’s arrival on the planet. She begins to understand that she walks in the will of Him she loves rather than being carried in it, and the realization of her freedom strikes her with both delight and terror as she begins to understand that although she lives in perfect harmony with Maleldil, yet she is also separate from Him (60). According to John Tanner, “Ransom thus sets the Lady’s foot on a path of self-reflectiveness. It is a path that can lead to much mischief—such as narcissism, hypocrisy, and pride. Yet it is also an enabling condition of freedom.” In other words, the Lady is now conscious of her ability to choose and of the awful freedom she has to take her hands out of the guiding hands of Maleldil.
Conflict arrives in the character of Weston who represents what ultimately happens to a self who sets himself up to be fully autonomous from God. After Weston arrives on Perelandra, he and Ransom have a discussion about God and the universe. Weston here describes what he has come to learn about a Force that has moved him and changed his thoughts, labeling that Force God and stating that he has been commissioned with the purpose of spreading true spirituality throughout the universe. He states, “I worked first for myself; then for science; then for humanity; but now at last for Spirit itself” (78). In this discussion of the Force, however, he also states that it is not a personal being but something which merely causes him to move down a certain path. Weston expresses the goal of moving according to this Force is as follows:
Why, spirit—mind—freedom—spontaneity—that’s what I’m talking about. That is the goal toward which the whole cosmic process is moving. The final disengagement of that freedom, that spirituality, is the work to which I dedicate my own life and the life of humanity. The goal: think of it! Pure spirit: the final vortex of self-thinking, self-originating activity (79).
The Force is impersonal, leading Weston farther and farther towards absolute autonomy from God. He explains that one must surrender to the Force, making oneself “the conductor of the live, fiery, central purpose—becoming the very finger with which it reaches forward” (81). He has yielded himself to this Force a little bit at a time, becoming more and more consumed by it and increasingly willing to carry out whatever it is the Force calls him to do. In the end, Weston, not understanding what this Force truly is, calls it fully into himself (82). According to David Downing, “Weston illustrates the final destiny of those who succumb to evil. When Weston tries to ally himself to spiritual forces he does not really understand, he loses his selfhood: the man becomes the Un-man” (92). In his desire to become a fully autonomous self, Weston ultimately becomes consumed with evil and his identity is lost.
What the Un-man then offers to the Lady is autonomy—absolute independence and a life lived apart from Maleldil. The Un-man perverts the truths the Lady has learned, seeking to once again ruin Paradise by causing disobedience and arousing within the Lady a sense of self-sufficiency. According to Jennifer Strange, “The Un-man claims to offer the lady a more highly evolved form of existence by tempting her to autonomy, but he is actually seeking to undo her identity as a being.” Rather than offering her a more fulfilled relationship with Maleldil, in actuality the Un-man is seeking to sever that relationship altogether. He is tempting the Lady to take her hands out of Maleldil’s and walk on her own. He attempts to turn the heart of the Lady fully inward upon herself to find her identity rather than to continue to look upward to Maleldil, her Creator and the only one who makes her complete.
One point at which the Un-man attacks the Lady is to cause her to doubt Maleldil’s command not to remain on the Fixed Land. The Un-man first tempts the Lady to break Maleldil’s command by telling her, “[Maleldil] has not forbidden you to think about dwelling on the Fixed Land” (89). He perverts what the Lady has learned about walking as a separate being, telling her that it is acceptable to think about things that will never happen, conveying to her the falsehood that Maleldil wishes her to know both what is and what might be (89). In her essay, “A Preface to Perelandra,” Margaret Hannay makes the following statement:
The Lady had no possessions and no control over her own life whatever; her island floated with her across the seas according to Maleldil’s will, not her own. The Green Lady is therefore tempted to stay on the Fixed Land so she can keep things and know where to find them, so that she will not have to be separated from the King, so that she can depend on her own will rather than the will of Maleldil (86).
By causing the Lady to succumb to the temptation of living on the Fixed Land, the Un-man would successfully sever the bond between the Lady and Maleldil, thus corrupting another world with sin.
The Un-man goes on to tell the Lady that Maleldil is “letting go of [her] hand a little,” stating, “He is making you a full woman, for up till now you were only half made—like the beasts who do nothing of themselves” (90). The Un-man continues in this temptation by attempting to arouse within the Lady a desire to become older than the King, stating “When you meet the King again, it is you who will have things to tell him. It is you who will be older than he and who will make him older” (90). Again, this hinges on the concept of autonomy, that the Lady can become older and experience joy and pleasures totally separate from Maleldil and the King.
The Un-man launches a full scale attack on the Lady’s concept of obedience, attempting to convince her that Maleldil secretly desires her to do that very thing which He has forbidden. The Un-man submits to the Lady that Maleldil informs her of these things “to maker [her] wise, older” (97). He says to the Lady, “You are becoming your own. That is what Maleldil wants you to do…His way of making you older is to make you make yourself older” (99). He then asks the Lady if she is absolutely certain that Maleldil wishes to always be obeyed, telling her that “a real disobeying, a real branching out, this is what He secretly longs for: secretly, because to tell you would spoil it all” (100). Throughout all of these temptations, the permeating theme continues to be that of autonomy—stepping outside of the will of Maleldil in order to fully become one’s own. According to Strange:
Autonomy in actuality brings about the death of self in that perfect identity is content to be the creature serving the Creator. False, autonomous self seeks to become equal with the Creator, making itself the centre and manipulating the world around it.
The struggle for true identity is also seen in the character of Ransom. Although he has been sent to Perelandra as a mediator of sorts, Ransom is a fallen human being who is caught up in the epic struggle of flesh against spirit. According to Downing, “Ransom’s two-toned body is an image of his divided self. Though he has submitted to the will of Maleldil (God), he still has within him his natural self, his own desire for control, safety, and self-reliance” (37). The struggle between Ransom’s natural self and submitted will is first seen after his initial conversation with the Lady. After she leaves, he comes to the realization that Maleldil is still present, and His presence at times makes Ransom uncomfortable. He gradually comes to the understanding that he felt uncomfortable “only at certain moments—at just those moments in fact…when a man asserts his independence and feels that now at last he’s on his own,” and in those moments, “the very air seemed too crowded to breathe” (62). Downing states:
Ransom discovers this sense of Presence is…seeming to squeeze out his very selfhood. When he tries to assert his own will, it seems almost suffocating. But when he gives himself up, it seems a glorious fullness, which makes earthly life, by comparison, seem barren and empty (40).
Ransom here is presented with the paradox of dying to self in order to live to God. He desires to be fully yielded to Maleldil, and yet he also desires to be fully himself and able to function apart from Maleldil. Ransom lives as a part of “the conflict between one’s sanctified self and one’s natural self, between the spirit of Christ within and the spirit of the ‘old Adam’ that resists the intrusion” (Downing 38). Although Ransom at first resisted fully surrendering himself to Maleldil, he came to a startling realization:
When you gave in to the thing, gave yourself up to it, there was no burden to be borne. It became not a load, but a medium, a sort of splendour as of eatable, drinkable, breathable gold, which fed and carried you and not only poured into you but out from you as well (62).
Ransom gradually learned how to surrender himself fully and allow Maleldil to govern every aspect of his being and thought. And as he learned to make this “inner gesture…his day became better and better as the hours passed” (63). In the end, Ransom chooses to fully surrender his will to Maleldil, fighting the Un-man despite the possibility that he may meet his own demise through his actions. And yet the fact remains that although Ransom has indeed chosen to surrender his will to Maleldil in certain specific instances, he is still a flawed being and not perfect in his relationship with Maleldil. For each battle he wins against the desire for autonomy, another remains to be fought because he is ultimately not a perfect being or identity.
Tinidril, however, chooses not to yield to the temptation of the Un-man and thus remains a perfect being and a perfect self. After the Un-man has left, she realizes that the only reason to desire living on the Fixed Land was “to be able on one day to command where [she] would be the next and what should happen to [her]” (179). To disobey the command “was to reject the wave—to draw [her] hands out of Maleldil’s, to say to Him, ‘Not thus, but thus’” (179). In the end, Tor and Tinidril both live in perfect harmony with Maleldil, content to obey Him and delight in His presence and all that He has given. They have obtained a sort of fixed freedom in that they have made the ultimate choice to follow Maleldil above all else, to be His true image-bearers, and to rule over Perelandra while remaining in perfect harmony and fellowship with Him. Tor says to Ransom, “Maleldil has taken us where He meant us to be” (178). Tor and Tinidril shall now walk forever with their hands in those of Maleldil, embracing whatever wave He brings their way.
C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra puts forth an important lesson pertaining to the concept of true self and identity, making a clear distinction between walking in total fellowship and surrender with God and walking in one’s own strength and according to one’s own will. Lewis puts forth the concept that the true actualization of self can only be found in God alone, and that all other attempts to “grow older” apart from Him will end in nothing more than failure and misery. In the end, “He is the centre…[and] there is no way out of the centre save into the Bent Will which casts itself into the Nowhere. Blessed be He!” (185).

Works Cited
Downing, David C. Planets in Peril. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.
---. “Perelandra: A Tale of Paradise Retained.” C. S. Lewis: Life, Works, and Legacy Volume 2. Ed. Bruce L. Edwards. Westport: Praeger, 2007. 35-51.
Hannay, Margaret P. “A Preface to Perelandra.” The Longing for a Form. Ed. Peter Schakel. United States: Kent University Press, 1977.
Lewis, Clive Staples. Perelandra. New York: Scribner Classics, 1972.
---. The Screwtape Letters. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001.
Strange, Jennifer. “Will the Green Lady Become A Self? The Dangers of Self-Consciousness In C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra.” C. S. Lewis. The Man and His Work: A 21st Century Legacy, Wake Forest. 27 October 2007.
Tanner, John S. “The Psychology of Temptation in Perelandra and Paradise Lost: What Lewis Learned From Milton.” Renascense. Winter 2000: 131+.

The Perversion of Desire

2007-10-22T14:15:00.000-07:00

Desire. It is a word laced with connotation and meaning. Every human on earth has experienced desire in some form or other. Indeed, every human being was created with the innate longing for joy and happiness programmed into us by the Creator himself. And yet, human beings have a tendency to seek joy and the fulfillment of desire in the wrong places. In his works The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Four Loves, and Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis outlines the deep longing within the heart of man. In these works, Lewis argues for the deception of man through the perversion of his desires, concluding that all desires can only be realized in God.
Probably the most potent example Lewis gives of the perversion of desire is the distortion of man’s sex drive. One of the most memorable examples Lewis provides is in Mere Christianity where he addresses the problem of a society that has too great a focus on sex. He provides the example of comparing a strip-tease with “bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon” (96). Lewis further states, “Perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful” (97). In The Four Loves, Lewis characterized “romantic” love into two categories: Eros and Venus. Gilbert Meilaender describes Venus as “the sexual appetite which man shares in common with the beasts” (The Taste for the Other 141). When pursued by itself, Venus leads to the ultimate perversion of sexual desire. The second part of love, Eros, is captivation with the Beloved. Lewis states, “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). This distinction also illustrates man’s search for God. One can either seek after the desires God has given him, seeking to find satiation for a longing he cannot explain; or one can seek after the Beloved Himself, following the true path of desire that God has created within each and every one of us.
Lewis also addresses the perversion of Venus in The Screwtape Letters. Throughout the work, Screwtape constantly advises Wormwood to attack the patient through various desires. As Screwtape remarks to his nephew, “All we can do is encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula” (44). As Screwtape advises Wormwood to attack the patient with a succession of sexual temptations, he encourages him to cause his patient to view women as a possession, as a mere means of gaining pleasure. In Mere Christianity, Lewis argues that there is nothing wrong with sexual pleasures within the parameters of marriage. Rather, he says, “You must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again” (105). The desire in and of itself is not bad. It is the twisting or perverting of the desire that is sin.
Another perversion of desire addressed in Lewis’s works is the perversion of love. One of the most poignant examples of this twisting of love is found in The Great Divorce where Lewis introduces the Ghost Pam and her brother who is a Bright Spirit. Pam is all consumed with mother-love for her dead son, Michael. Yet her love has been twisted into something ugly. She has allowed herself to become all-consumed by her supposed “love” for Michael to the extent that she would have dragged him to hell with her (101). The Bright Spirit says to her, “No natural feelings are high or low, holy or unholy, in themselves. They are all holy when God’s hand is on the rein. They all go bad when they set up on their own will and make themselves into false gods” (100). Pam is pursuing her love for Michael as an end in itself, seeking to satiate her desire for God in her overbearing, all-consuming love for her son. Lewis states, “Everything…is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him. And the higher and mightier it is in the natural order, the more demoniac it will be if it rebels” (106). The instance of Pam’s all-consuming love, just like a man wrongly indulging his sex drive, is a way of seeking the satiation of desire apart from God.
Lewis also addresses this idea of idolatrous love in The Four Loves. According to Lewis, a likeness to God has been given to humanity and can be “received with or without thanks, can be used or abused” (6). In other words, all humans have been created according to the image of God and thus have an innate longing for God. We can either acknowledge that likeness and live our lives for the glory of God, or we can choose to pervert the desire for God by abusing the pleasures he has given us. True and lasting satisfaction, however, can only be found in the first response and not in the latter. Lewis further speaks about the fact that human love “has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority” (7). However, our loves cannot make a “claim to divinity until the claim becomes plausible. It does not become plausible until there is in them a real resemblance to God, to Love Himself” (8). Lewis goes on to illustrate what will happen if we do not pursue these desires in light of God:
We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they will become gods: then they will become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred (8).
When pursued as an end in itself, love does not bring satisfaction. Love in its truest form exists in the person of Jesus Christ, and attempts to fulfill love apart from him will fall short and turn up empty. Lewis states, “The human loves can be glorious images of Divine love. No less than that: but also no more—proximities of likeness which in one instance may help, and in another may hinder proximity of approach” (9). When one pursues human love as an end in itself rather than pursuing it as an image of Divine love, one will not come any closer to fulfilling the longing for God.
All of these perversions of desire arise from a wrong understanding of man’s innate longing for the supernatural. In his quest to fulfill his desire for the transcendent, the sinful nature of man twists and distorts this yearning for God into a wrong pursuit of pleasure. This yearning for the transcendent can be described as Sechnsucht which Corbin Carnell describes as “the pursuit of the unattainable” (Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect 21). He further states, “Since the object of the pursuit keeps appearing under the guise of the unattainable…[it] does provide a limited source of pleasure” (21-22). In other words, as a human being seeks after the unattainable, he can experience small tastes of the transcendent. Instead of recognizing these pleasures as coming from God, however, man often continues down the path of looking to temporal things to satisfy him rather than turning to God.
In Mere Christianity, Lewis also addresses this search for the Other. He states, “Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world” (135). He then outlines three different responses to desire: The Fool’s Way, The Way of the Disillusioned ‘Sensible Man,’ and The Christian Way (135-136). The Fool’s way involves seeking after the pleasure itself, convincing oneself that “if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after” (135-136). The Fool’s way follows the pattern of perverted desire. The way of the ‘Sensible Man’ is to decide that everything about desire is nonsense and can never be attained. Rather than pursuing his desire for the transcendent, the ‘Sensible Man’ merely disregards the pull of God. Lastly, the Christian Way argues that “if I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world” (136-137). This longing is what Carnell describes as the “element of aspiration and longing for what we may call…the infinite—for that which transcends everyday finite experience” (23).
Why does this concept matter? Why is it that God allows man to wrongly pursue the satiation of his desires? Lewis addresses this concept in The Screwtape Letters:
The Enemy takes this risk because He has a curious fantasy of making all these disgusting little human vermin into what he calls His ‘free’ lovers and servants…Desiring their freedom, He therefore refuses to carry them, by their mere affections and habits to any of the goals which He sets before them: He leaves them to ‘do it on their own’” (7).
In other words, God wants man to desire him and to take absolute delight in him, longing for human beings to realize him as the initiator and ultimate satisfier of all desire. As Lewis expresses it, “He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (The Screwtape Letters 39). Will Vaus states:
If a person diligently follows desire and resolutely abandons false sources when their falsity appears, that person will come out at last into the clear knowledge that the human soul was made to enjoy some object that is never fully given in our present mode of experience (Mere Theology 23).
Lewis also makes this statement in The Great Divorce: “No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened” (75). In other words, when one realizes the true object of desire, one cannot help but find the satiation of that desire in Christ himself. As Wayne Martindale puts it:
We are all pilgrims in search of a Celestial City: some lost and looking for joy in all the wrong places, some saved with eyes fixed on the heavenly prize, and some sidetracked on dead-end streets and byways—but all looking for heaven, whether we know it or not (138).
This concept illustrates the principle in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God has “set eternity in their heart.” And yet God has also given each and every person the ability to choose eternity or the temporal. It is in the perverted choosing of temporal desires over those of God that man becomes dissatisfied and obsessed with seeking to satiate the ever elusive concept of joy.
If God has placed within us such a strong desire for joy and pleasure, why is it that humanity so often seeks satiation in all the wrong places? Martindale provides insight into this concept when he states of the characters in The Great Divorce, “Each…fears that by accepting the invitation to Heaven they will have to give up something that has come to define them” (139). In other words, men are afraid to yield themselves to God because they realize that in so doing they will have to allow a part of themselves to die and become fully surrender their flesh to Christ. Martindale continues:
We learn that behind each [fear] is the one big fear: that some desire would be unfulfilled. If I went Gods’ way, I might lose out on something. What Lewis helps us discover is that all desires are, at rock-bottom, for Heaven. All of them (139).
Desire can only be fulfilled when man is willing to acknowledge “eternity within his heart,” choosing to pursue the things of God and the true joys that only he can bring over those temporal things that only bring transitory fulfillment.
The works of C. S. Lewis are important in providing insights into the desires of man and both the corrupt and correct pursuit of those desires. Apart from recognizing and accepting the work of Christ, it is impossible for man to truly obtain the fulfillment of desire. In our flesh, we will pursue desires in such a way as will ultimately lead to destruction. God desires our freedom and therefore allows us to pursue our desires to either end.

Works Cited
Carnell, Corbin Scott. Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Downing, David C. Planets in Peril. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.
Holy Bible. New American Standard Version. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1995.
Lewis, Clive Staples. The Great Divorce. New York: Harpercollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.
---. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001
---. The Four Loves. New York: Harcourt., 1960.
---. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Martindale, Wayne. “The Great Divorce: Journey to Heaven and Hell.” C. S. Lewis: Life, Works, and Legacy Volume 3. Ed. Bruce L. Edwards. Westport: Praeger, 2007.
Meilaender, Gilbert. The Taste for the Other: The Social and Ethical Thought of C. S. Lewis. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Schakel, Peter. The Longing for a Form. United States: Kent State University Press, 1977.
Vaus, Will. Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

The Perversion of Desire

2007-10-04T20:34:00.000-07:00

Carnell, Corbin Scott. Bright Shadow of Reality: C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Downing, David C. Planets in Peril. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Great Divorce. New York: Harpercollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.
---. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001
---. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.

Meilaender, Gilbert. The Taste for the Other: The Social and Ethical Thought of C. S. Lewis.

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Schakel, Peter. The Longing for a Form. United States: Kent State University Press, 1977.

Revive Us, O God!

2007-09-05T14:14:00.000-07:00

God wants to do something in our nation. Can you feel it? I can.

I believe with all of my heart that God is stirring, is slowly awakening the Church from our long, deep slumber. And it is time. In fact, it is past time.

Join me in praying for Revival! Remember, it starts with you! God wants to do a great work in and through each and every one of us. Are you in tune to where He is leading you?

What is your passion level for the lost? How do you view those around you who are living in complete darkness? Consider the words of C. S. Lewis: "There are not ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations--these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit--immortal horrors or everlasting splendours." How often do you truly think about the fact that millions of people every day die and spend all of eternity in hell? Do you view people as either immortal horrors or everlasting splendours? When was the last time you broke out of your Christian bubble? Are you willing to go to the hard places and answer the hard questions for the sake of Christ?

Hit your knees, Church! You want change? Pray! You want a heart for the lost? Pray! You want to see God work mightily and sweep our nation with a passionate fire for Him like we have never seen before? Pray, pray, PRAY!!!

Join me. Let us all lift up holy hands in prayer. God wants to do a work. Are you going to be part of it?

Oh, the depths of depravity!

2007-08-28T10:43:00.000-07:00

I am going to start this blog off with a warning: This may shock you to the point of unbelief. If you are a squeamish person, don't read this. And I am dead serious.

Last night at work, I had the most scary conversation of my entire life. One of my co-workers and I were looking at a book about sea-life. We came upon pictures of shark poachers cutting off shark fins and then dumping the sharks back in the water.
"Animals really should have some rights," my co-worker said. "I mean it's just not right what these poachers are doing to these animals!"
"I agree that it's wrong and we need to be kind to animals," I said, "But we should never treat animals with more value than humans."
"If you ask me, human life is totally overrated anyway."
"Really? How so?"
"Well, I have come up with a solution to solve the problem of world hunger and overpopulation."
"Really? And what solution is that?"
"We should legalize cannibalism."
I laughed. I really, honestly thought my co-worker was joking. Then I saw the look on his face.
"You ARE joking, right??!!"
"No, I am totally serious. I think we should turn old people, mentally handicapped people, and homeless people into meat product. That would solve the problem of world hunger, solve the problem of overpopulation, and solve the problem of having people around that no one actually wants alive in the first place. Jonathan Swift was the first to propose it. He was a little off base, but my solution would certainly work."
I had no words. I absolutely cannot describe the waves of utter repulsion that crashed over me. Even now, I do not know how to respond or how I will talk to this co-worker the next time I got in to work.

I have been meditating on the complete depravity of man all day long. My mind just cannot fathom having such a low regard for the sancitity of human life. To treat human beings like cows, pigs, or chickens is...unthinkable! It is grotesque to the fullest extent of imagination! This proposal epitomizes the ideal of Social Darwinism. It is the ultimate form of survival of the fittest, the strong literally preying upon the weak. My mind absolutely cannot fathom... I have no words. I know this man needs Jesus more than anyone I have ever met, but I do not know how I can ever face him without the repulsion that I feel towards his ideas totally portrayed on my face. This experience has taught me more than anything else how important it is to ask Christ to help me love the sinner while hating his sin.

"The Weight of Glory"

2007-08-25T07:47:00.001-07:00

One of my assignments in my Theology class is to read C. S. Lewis's book The Weight of Glory. This book is a compilation of many of Lewis's sermons. The first sermon in the book is "The Weight of Glory." If you have never read it, you MUST read it!!
The following passage spoke volumes to me:
"In the end that Face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised. to please God... to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness... to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son -- it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is."
"A real ingredient in the divine happiness. What an amazing, humbling, beautiful thought! I am part of what makes God happy! He delights in me as His child! Indeed, that is a concept which my finite mind will never grasp. God delights in me! Incredible! Do I in turn delight in Him?

Psalm 37:4 ~ "Delight yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart."

Psalm 16:11 ~ "You will make known to me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever."

Psalm 36:8 ~ "They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; and You give them to drink of the river of Your delights... In Your light we see light."

God delights in me and desires that, in return, I would delight in Him. HE is the giver of good and perfect gifts! My personal desires cannot and should not outweigh my desire for God. What am I delighting in above God? Do I intentionally live my life as an ingredient of the diving happiness?

Oh, the irony of it all!

2007-08-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

Working at Barnes & Noble, I help people find and purchase the craziest books imaginable. In all honesty, sometimes it is difficult for me to keep a straight face while helping customers. Other times, it is a challenge to keep my mouth shut about what I think of what they are buying.
On Wednesday evening, I observed one of the most ironic titles I have ever seen. A woman who came through my register bought a book entitled Shacking Up: A Smart Girl's Guide To Living In Sin Without Getting Burned. I found the title of this book ironic on several levels.
First, the word sin appeared in the title. In other words, the author of this book recognized -- either sarcastically or consciously -- that shacking up IS actually a sin. It goes back to the idea that God has programmed into each of us what marriage means and deep down we know that sex should be reserved for the marriage bed alone. Thus, the author places "sin" in the title of her book.
The other thing that I found incredibly ironic was "living in sin without getting burned." All flippancy aside, if a person living in sin doesn't "get burned" while alive, that person will spend all of eternity burning.
I couldn't help but feel deeply sorry for the woman who came through my line. As she walked out, I offered up a prayer for her. Let's all keep in mind that those who need the gospel are all around us every day!

The Gospel and Missions

2007-08-22T11:31:00.000-07:00

Dr. Bruce Ashford, director of the Great Commission Center at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, preached a powerful, much-needed sermon in Chapel this morning. I would like to make some observations and provide those of you reading with a challenge.

His text was taken from Romans 1:14-17:
"I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish. So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'But the righteous man shall live by faith.' "

In this portion of Scripture, Paul addresses three important questions:
1) Who am I?
2) What am I going to do?
3) Why am I going to do it?

The answer to the first question is found in verse 14: "I am under an obligation to Greeks and to barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish." In other words, Paul is stating here that he has a specific obligation to preach the Gospel to ALL people! He is following the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20 to go and make disciples of all nations. Essentially, Paul is emphasizing the fact that he has been appointed an ambassador of Christ. He is a herald of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The second answer addresses what he is going to do about it. The answer is found in verse 15: "So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." The incredible part about this statement is that Paul knew what awaited him in Rome! He understood that he would be tormented, beaten, ridiculed, and persecuted for the sake of the Gospel he was preaching. And yet, Paul wanted to go! He desired to preach the Gospel to ALL people! Paul understood that real, genuine joy is multiplied and increased in the midst of suffering. Paul was satisfied with God as his Ultimate Treasure, not merely enamored by the gifts of God. Do you love God or do you love God's gifts? Do you want to serve God anywhere He tells you to go, or are you unwilling to leave the comforts and familiarity of an easy life at home? Do you take so much delight in God's gifts that you forget to seek the face of God Himself?

Lastly, why does Paul preach the Gospel? Because he is not ashamed of it! He recognizes that the Gospel is the power of God! People CANNOT be saved apart from the Gospel! It is only through the life-changing power of the message of the cross that people can be saved! And God has entrusted US with the amazing responsibility of telling them! Do you see yourself as a debtor to God? Do you feel, believe, and understand the truth of hell? William Carey penned the following words in one of his letters: "O that I could always live as under His Eye and feel a sense of His immediate Presence, this is life and all besides this is death to my Soul." Do you understand the importance of living under His eye? Are you willing to place your "Yes" on the altar and then go wherever God takes you? Are you unwilling to say "Yes" because your prayer is not "Thy will be done," but rather "Allow my will to be done"?

In conclusion, I would like to challenge you with some thoughts that have been heavily on my own mind of late. First, is God your Ultimate Treasure? It is one thing to love God, but it is quite another to love Him unreservedly and wholly. Second, are you willing to do whatever God wants you to do and go wherever He has you to go? Are you willing to forsake the comforts of life for the souls of others? Are you willing to at least ASK God if He would have you go? Third, do you understand the depth of man's depravity and the power of God to save men from it? If not, are you willing to ask God to give you a passion for the Nations and a heart that yearns for the lost?

Seeing

2007-08-01T10:41:00.000-07:00

I gaze at you through
A lens of bitterness,
Not wanting to understand,
Not caring to know you.

You make me angry,
You seem to hurt me
Deliberately, intentionally,
Striking where it pains most.

Crouching like a wounded
Animal, I look for my
Opportunity to strike,
To return pain for pain.

Poised to spring, I
Experience an epiphany
As for a brief moment
I see beneath your mask

Looking very closely
I can see manacles
Cutting into your wrists
And chains binding your feet

You are weeping,
Crying desperately
For you know not what,
Seeking for relief

My bitterness melts
Away as tears fill
My eyes and I realize
You are hurting more